Freeze Thaw

Freeze-Thaw Resistance of Concrete
With Marginal Air Content

Publication No. FHWA-HRT-06-117
Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296
December 2006
Foreword
In 1994, the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) published results from a research
study on freezing and thawing of concrete, in which a number of concretes containing 2.5 to 3
percent total air performed adequately in freeze-thaw tests. These results seemed surprising in
light of common minimum specification limits of 4 to 6 percent. The work reported here began
as a followup study to the SHRP work, an attempt to corroborate the earlier results.
This report describes a laboratory investigation of the behavior of concrete with marginal air
void systems, in which the air content and other air void system parameters do not consistently
meet commonly accepted thresholds for freeze-thaw durability. Some of the concretes did
provide good durabilitybut others did not. The type of air-entraining admixture played a major
role in performance. In addition to measuring air-void parameters by the linear traverse
technique, special programmed equipment at Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
(TFHRC) was used to measure and record each individual chord length across the air voids
traversed. The air-void chord length distributions are presented and analyzed in this report. The
research that is the subject of this paper was funded by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and conducted entirely at FHWAs TFHRC.
The results of this research will be of interest to engineers involved in the construction and
acceptance of both concrete pavements and structures built in climates with below-freezing
temperatures. The report will also be of interest to concrete researchers studying the factors
affecting concrete durability.
Gary L. Henderson
Director, Office of Infrastructure
Research and Development
Notice
This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation
in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of
the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation.
The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or
manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the
objective of the document.
Quality Assurance Statement
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve
Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards
and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its
information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to
ensure continuous quality improvement.
Technical Report Documentation Page
1. Report No.
2. Government Accession No.
HRT-06-117
4. Title and Subtitle
Freeze-Thaw Resistance of Concrete With Marginal Air Content
3. Recipients Catalog No.
7. Author(s)
Jussara Tanesi and Richard Meininger
8. Performing Organization
Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address

FHWA Office of Infrastructure Research and Development
McLean VA 22101
10. Work Unit No.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of Infrastructure Research and Development
Federal Highway Administration
McLean, VA 22101-2296
5. Report Date
December 2006
6. Performing Organization Code
11. Contract or Grant No.

13. Type of Report and Period
Covered
Final report
2001-2004
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes

Point of contact at TFHRC (FHWA) is Richard Meininger, HRDI-11.
16. Abstract
Freeze-thaw resistance is a key durability factor for concrete pavements. Recommendations for the air
void system parameters are normally: 6 1 percent total air, and spacing factor less than 0.20
millimeters. However, it was observed that some concretes that did not possess these commonly
accepted thresholds presented good freeze-thaw resistance in laboratory studies.
This study evaluated the freeze-thaw resistance of several marginal air void mixes, with two
different types of air-entraining admixtures (AEA)a Vinsol resin and a synthetic admixture. This
study used rapid cycles of freezing and thawing in plain water, in the absence of deicing salts.
For the specific materials and concrete mixture proportions used in this project, the marginal air mixes
(concretes with fresh air contents of 3.5 percent or higher) presented an adequate freeze-thaw
performance when Vinsol resin based air-entraining admixture was used. The synthetic admixture used
in this study did not show the same good performance as the Vinsol resin admixture.
17. Key Words
freeze-thaw, Vinsol resin, synthetic, air-entraining
admixture, marginal air.
19. Security Classif. (of
this report)
Unclassified
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)
18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to
the public through the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
21. No of Pages
22. Price
20. Security Classif. (of this
93
page)
Unclassified
Reproduction of completed pages authorized
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS
Symbol
When You Know
in
ft
yd
mi
inches
feet
yards
miles
Multiply By
LENGTH
25.4
0.305
0.914
1.61
To Find
Symbol
millimeters
meters
meters
kilometers
mm
m
m
km
square millimeters
square meters
square meters
hectares
square kilometers
mm
2
m
2
m
ha
2
km
AREA
2
in
2
ft
2
yd
ac
2
mi
square inches
square feet
square yard
acres
square miles
645.2
0.093
0.836
0.405
2.59
fl oz
gal
ft3
3
yd
fluid ounces
gallons
cubic feet
cubic yards
oz
lb
T
ounces
pounds
short tons (2000 lb)
Fahrenheit
fc
fl
foot-candles
foot-Lamberts
lbf
lbf/in2
poundforce
poundforce per square inch
VOLUME
29.57
milliliters
3.785
liters
0.028
cubic meters
0.765
cubic meters
3
NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m
mL
L
m3
3
m
MASS
28.35
0.454
0.907
grams
kilograms
megagrams (or "metric ton")
g
kg
Mg (or "t")
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

F
5 (F-32)/9
or (F-32)/1.8
Celsius
lux
candela/m2
lx
cd/m2
ILLUMINATION
10.76
3.426
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

4.45
6.89
newtons
kilopascals
N
kPa
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

Symbol
When You Know
mm
m
m
km
millimeters
meters
meters
kilometers
Multiply By
LENGTH
0.039
3.28
1.09
0.621
To Find
Symbol
inches
feet
yards
miles
in
ft
yd
mi
square inches
square feet
square yards
acres
square miles
in
ft2
2
yd
ac
2
mi
fluid ounces
gallons
cubic feet
cubic yards
fl oz
gal
3
ft
3
yd
ounces
pounds
short tons (2000 lb)
oz
lb
T
AREA
2
mm
m2
2
m
ha
2
km
square millimeters
square meters
square meters
hectares
square kilometers
0.0016
10.764
1.195
2.47
0.386
mL
L
3
m
3
m
milliliters
liters
cubic meters
cubic meters
g
kg
Mg (or "t")
grams
kilograms
megagrams (or "metric ton")
Celsius
VOLUME
0.034
0.264
35.314
1.307
MASS
0.035
2.202
1.103
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

C
1.8C+32
Fahrenheit
foot-candles
foot-Lamberts
fc
fl
ILLUMINATION
lx
2
cd/m
lux
2
candela/m
N
kPa
newtons
kilopascals
0.0929
0.2919
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

0.225
0.145
poundforce
poundforce per square inch
lbf
2
lbf/in
*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.
(Revised March 2003)
ii
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 3
Organization and Scope........................................................................................................... 3
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 5
Concrete Microstructure .......................................................................................................... 5
Origin of Air in Concrete......................................................................................................... 5
Air-Entraining Admixtures (AEA)................................................................................... 6
Freeze-Thaw Damage Mechanisms......................................................................................... 6
Critical Saturation............................................................................................................. 6
Hydraulic Pressure............................................................................................................ 6
Ice Accretion and Osmotic Pressure................................................................................. 7
Role of Air Voids..................................................................................................................... 8
Air Void Parameters ................................................................................................................ 8
Freeze-Thaw Testing ............................................................................................................. 11
Damage Assessment Using Modal Testing ........................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 3: EFFECT OF AIR CONTENT AND W/C ON FREEZE-THAW
RESISTANCE .............................................................................................................................. 17
Experimental Investigation.................................................................................................... 17
Results.................................................................................................................................... 18
Discussion and Analysis ........................................................................................................ 21
CHAPTER 4: USE OF SYNTHETIC AIR-ENTRAINING ADMIXTURE ............................... 29
Experimental Investigation.................................................................................................... 29
Results.................................................................................................................................... 31
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 41
APPENDIX A............................................................................................................................... 43
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................... 49
APPENDIX C. STATISTICAL ANALYSISDURABILITY FACTOR.................................. 75
APPENDIX D............................................................................................................................... 77
ACKNOWLEDGMENT............................................................................................................... 79
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 81
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Graph. Freeze-thaw durability factor for different levels of total air contents................ 1
Figure 2. Illustration. Concrete paste microstructure...................................................................... 5
Figure 3. Equation. Pressure gradient. ............................................................................................ 7
Figure 4. Equation. Spacing factor. ................................................................................................ 7
Figure 5. Illustration. The darker area shows the air void's protection zone of concrete. .............. 8
Figure 6. Illustration. Smaller air voids have higher specific surface and a greater number
of bubbles than larger air voids, and offer more protection. ........................................... 9
Figure 7. Illustration. Protection zone for a lower air void content.............................................. 10
Figure 8. Photo. Vertical container for freeze-thaw concrete specimen (ASTM C 666
Procedure A).................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 9. Photo. ASTM C 215 test setup. ..................................................................................... 12
Figure 10. Graph. Time domain impulse data. ............................................................................. 13
Figure 11. Graph. Time domain response data. ............................................................................ 13
Figure 12. Graph. Frequency response curve. .............................................................................. 14
Figure 13. Equation. Relative dynamic modulus.......................................................................... 14
Figure 14. Equation. Durability factor.......................................................................................... 14
Figure 15. Graph. Effect of freeze-thaw cycling on the resonant frequency curve of a
non-air-entrained concrete after 31 cycles when concrete failure was achieved
(mix 302beam A, see chapter 5). ............................................................................ 15
Figure 16. Graph. Relative dynamic modulus versus cycles for mixes with water-cement
ratio=0.40. ................................................................................................................... 22
ratio=0.45. ................................................................................................................... 22
ratio=0.50. ................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 19. Graph. Relative dynamic modulus versus cycles for mixes with designed air
void content of 3.5 percent.......................................................................................... 23
iv
Figure 22. Graph. Mass change versus cycles for mixes with water-cement ratio=0.40. ............ 25
Figure 25. Graph. Comparison among modified point count test, linear traverse test, and
fresh air content........................................................................................................... 26
Figure 26. Graph. Relation between spacing factor and relative dynamic modulus. ................... 27
Figure 27. Graph. Relation between specific surface and relative dynamic modulus.................. 27
Figure 28. Graph. Relative dynamic modulus versus cycles for mix 225 (VR AEA3.1%
fresh air content). Individual specimens are shown. A stands for specimens
tested according to Procedure A. ................................................................................ 33
Figure 29. Graph. Relative dynamic modulus versus cycles for mix 302 (non-air-entrained).
Individual specimens are shown. A stands for specimens tested according to
Procedure A................................................................................................................. 34
Figure 30. Graph. Bubble size distribution by C 457 (linear traverse) of set 1 with Vinsol
resin admixture............................................................................................................ 35
Figure 31. Graph. Bubble size distribution by C 457 (linear traverse) of set 2 with synthetic
air-entraining admixture.............................................................................................. 35
Figure 32. Graph. Comparison between mixes prepared with Vinsol resin air-entrained
admixture (set 1) and synthetic air-entrained admixture (set 2). ................................ 36
Figure 33. Graph. Relation between durability factor and spacing factor of mixes with Vinsol
resin admixture (set 1) or synthetic admixture (set 2). ................................................... 37
Figure 34. Graph. Relation between durability factor and specific surface of mixes with Vinsol
resin admixture (set 1) or synthetic admixture (set 2). ................................................. 37
Figure 35. Graph. Relation between durability factor and hardened air content of mixes with
Vinsol resin admixture (set 1) or synthetic admixture (set 2)..................................... 38
Figure 36. Graph. Relation between durability factor and fresh air content of mixes with
Vinsol resin admixture (set 1) or synthetic admixture (set 2)..................................... 38
Figure 37. Photo. Scaling of typical specimen. The specimens tended to scale toward the center
region of the beam specimens corresponding to the area where the metal containers
bulged due to ice formation between the concrete and the container. ........................ 39
Figure 38. Graph. Mass change of mixes with Vinsol resin admixture (set 1) or synthetic
admixture (set 2). ........................................................................................................ 39
Figure 39. Screen capture. Typical plot generated by NI 4552 and BNC 5140 setup.................. 78
vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Experiment design for mixes 115118. .......................................................................... 17
Table 2. Mixture proportions for mixes 115118......................................................................... 18
Table 3. Fresh concrete properties for mixes 115118................................................................. 19
Table 4. 28-Day strength results for mixes 115118.................................................................... 19
Table 5. Summary of freeze-thaw test results for mixes 115118. .............................................. 20
Table 6. Modified point count (MPC) results for mixes 115118................................................ 21
Table 7. Linear traverse (LT) results for mixes 115118. ............................................................ 21
Table 8. Materials used for set 1 (mixes 223302Vinsol resin (VR) AEA) and set 2
(346350(synthetic) SYN AEA)................................................................................ 29
Table 9. Mixture proportions for set 1 (223302)w/c=0.45. .................................................... 29
Table 10. Mixture proportions for set 2 (mixes 346350)w/c=0.45......................................... 30
Table 11. Fresh concrete properties for set 1 (VR AEA). ............................................................ 31
Table 12. Fresh concrete properties for set 2 (SYN AEA). .......................................................... 31
Table 13. 28-Day strengths for set 1 (VR AEA). ......................................................................... 32
Table 14. 28-Day strengths for set 2 (SYN AEA). ....................................................................... 32
Table 15. Air void system of set 1 (VR AEA) measured by linear traverse................................. 32
Table 16. Durability factorresults for set 1 (VR AEA)............................................................. 33
Table 17. Air void system of mixes 346350 (set 2SYN AEA) measured by
linear traverse................................................................................................................ 34
Table 18. Durability factorresults for set 2 (SYN AEA). Results are sorted by
percentage of fresh air................................................................................................... 36
Table 19. Coarse aggregate gradations mixes 115118................................................................ 43
Table 22. Fine aggregate gradation mixes 115118. .................................................................... 43
vii

Table 25. Other aggregate properties mixes 115118. ................................................................. 44
Table 28. Cement composition (values in percent unless otherwise indicated)
mixes 115118. ............................................................................................................. 45
Table 29. Additional cement properties mixes 115118. ............................................................. 45
mixes 223302. ............................................................................................................. 46
mixes 346350. ............................................................................................................. 46
Table 34. Mix 115-1RDM versus cycles. ................................................................................. 49
viii

Table 47. Mix 223RDM versus cycles. .................................................................................... 54
Table 58. Mix 115-1Mass change versus cycles. ..................................................................... 64
ix
Table 71. Mix 223Mass change versus cycles.......................................................................... 69

Table 77. Durability factor sets 1 and 2sorted by fresh air content. ......................................... 75
Table 78. Mass change sets 1 and 2sorted by fresh air content. ............................................... 75
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
In 2004, the value of concrete production for highway construction and maintenance has been
estimated to be more than 9 billion dollars. Nevertheless, 34 percent of the United States major
roads are still in poor or mediocre condition.(1) Although in cold climate regions, the most
persistent problem is the concrete deterioration caused by freezing and thawing;(2) it is an issue
not completely resolved.
Since the late 1930s, air-entraining cements and admixtures have been used to impart freezethaw resistance to concrete. Because air detracts from some other concrete properties
(particularly strength), the goal of air entrainment is to provide sufficient air in the concrete to
ensure freeze-thaw resistance, but no more than is required for that purpose. In non-freeze-thaw
exposures some air is often used for economy or improved workability.
Research from the 1940s through 1960s by Gonnerman,(3) Powers,(4) Klieger,(5) Cordon and
Merrill,(6) and others sought to establish air requirements for frost-resistant concrete. These initial
research efforts concluded that at least 3 percent of air, by volume, in the fresh concrete was
necessary to protect concrete from freezing and thawing (see figure 1, for example). Further
research indicated that, since the air voids protect the paste, the required air content depended on
the paste content, which is largely a function of aggregate size and gradation and of minimum
cement content requirements. Therefore, 3 percent air per unit of concrete volume may be
sufficient for a lean mix but not for a richer mix.
Figure 1. Graph. Freeze-thaw durability factor for different

levels of total air contents.(6)
The air bubbles can be classified as entrapped or entrained. Entrapped air voids are relatively
large, typically 1 to 10 millimeters (mm) or more in size. Air-entrained concrete contains much
smaller voids that range from 0.01 mm to 1 mm in diameter(7) and that are stabilized in fresh
cement paste through the action of the air-entraining admixture (AEA) (see chapter 2). The
amount of entrapped air in concrete is also a function of aggregate size and gradation (especially
fine aggregate gradation). Entrapped air usually comprises 1 to 2 percent of the concrete volume,
but in some cases can comprise as much as 3 or 4 percent.(5) When air-entraining admixture or
air-entraining cement is used to produce air-entrained concrete, the air void structure is usually
smaller, with fewer larger air voids.
The American Concrete Institute (ACI) 211.1 Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for
Concrete(8) guidelines for air content reflect the factors discussed above, and over time certain
recommendations (ACI 201.2R(9)), specifications (American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) C 94(10) and ACI 301(11)), and codes (ACI 318(12)) regarding air content and other air
void system parameters have evolved. Most State departments of transportation (DOTs) where
concrete is exposed to significant freezing and thawing specify target air contents of 5 to 7
percent in the fresh concrete for aggregate maximum sizes of 50 mm down to 12.5 mm (often
with tolerances of 2 percent).(13) Usually this specification is based on results of fresh concrete
testing by either ASTM C231(14) and American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) T 152(15) (pressure method) or ASTM C173(16) and AASHTO T196(17)
(volumetric method). Unfortunately, these methods provide only a measurement of the total air
volume, not the size or distribution of the air voids. Furthermore, these tests are often performed
before the completion of construction operations (such as placing, consolidating, and finishing)
that can alter the air void system. Therefore, the actual in-place hardened air content and other air
void system parameters may differ significantly from those in the fresh concrete.
Another commonly accepted hardened concrete parameter for freeze-thaw resistance is an airvoid spacing factor (ASTM C 457(18)) of 0.200 mm or less (spacing factor is defined and
discussed in chapter 2). A number of early research studies reported that a spacing factor of
approximately 0.250 mm or less signified adequate freeze-thaw resistance. Although Powers first
advocated void spacing as a means of specifying air entrained concrete in the 1950s,(19) few
States have actually used a spacing factor specification. Until the recent advent of the Air Void
Analyzer (AVA), the only means of determining the spacing factor was the labor-intensive
ASTM C457,(18) which involves microscopical examination of a polished specimen of hardened
concrete. The AVA method estimates the spacing factor from measurements on fresh concrete,
which makes it a faster and more practical quality control test than ASTM C457.(18) Recently,
some States have begun to specify spacing factor based on the AVA measurement. However,
since the AVA and ASTM C457(18) methods are different, it is not clear whether a limit of 0.200
mm for the spacing factor determined by the AVA is appropriate for assuring freeze-thaw
durability.
It is also very important to highlight that the current recommendations were established based
mostly on data of concretes containing neutralized Vinsol resin as an air-entraining admixture
(AEA). On the other hand, the scarcity of Vinsol resin admixture is responsible for the increasing
use of synthetic admixtures. Nevertheless, an extensive comparison of the freeze-thaw
performances of Vinsol and synthetic air-entrained concretes with marginal air content has not
yet been performed.
In 1994, the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) published results from a research
study on freezing and thawing of concrete, in which a number of concretes containing 2.5 to 3
percent total air performed adequately in freeze-thaw tests. These results seemed surprising in
light of common minimum specification limits of 4 to 6 percent. The work reported here began
as a followup study to the SHRP work, an attempt to corroborate the earlier results.
2
This report describes a laboratory investigation of the behavior of concrete with marginal air
void systems, in which the air content and other air void system parameters do not meet
commonly accepted thresholds for freeze-thaw durability.
The effect of deicing agents on concrete durability will not be covered in this document. Only
evaluations using freezing and thawing in plain water were used in this study (AASHTO T 161(20)
and ASTM C 666, Procedure A,(21) using freezing in water and thawing in water).
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study are as follows:
To evaluate the water-cement (w/c) ratio influence on the freeze-thaw resistance of the mixes
with Vinsol resin air-entraining admixture (chapter 3).
To compare the performance of the mixes with Vinsol resin and synthetic air-entraining
admixtures (chapter 4).
ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE

The report contains five chapters. Chapter 1, the introduction, defines the objectives and scope of
the study. Chapter 2 provides background information on freeze-thaw behavior of concrete, air
entrainment, and freeze-thaw testing. Chapters 3 and 4 describe laboratory experiments
performed as part of this research and discuss the experimental results. Chapter 5 provides a
summary of findings, conclusions, and future research needs.
There are four appendices to the report. Appendix A contains the properties of the materials used
in the project. Appendix B contains the complete test data for the experiments described in
chapters 3 and 4 of the report. Appendix C presents the analyses of variance of the test results.
Appendix D describes the equipment and method used to obtain time-domain data from ASTM
C 215(22) (impact method) testing of freeze-thaw test specimens.
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND
CONCRETE MICROSTRUCTURE
Hardened concrete is composed of coarse and fine aggregate particles embedded in a matrix of
hardened cement paste. The hardened paste, which comprises approximately 25 to 30 percent of
the concrete volume, consists primarily of calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) gel, calcium hydroxide
(CH), calcium sulfoaluminate and capillary pore space (space originally filled with water in
excess of that required for hydration of the cement). The CSH gel is itself porous, with an
intrinsic porosity of approximately 28 percent.(23) A schematic diagram of concrete paste
microstructure at the boundary of an air void is shown in figure 2. The solid portion of the
hydrated cement gel is depicted as small black spheres. The interstitial spaces between the
spheres are the gel pores. The capillary pores are denoted with a C.
Figure 2. Illustration. Concrete paste

microstructure.(24)
The gel pore diameters range in size from 5 x 10-7 to 25 x 10-7 mm. The temperature at which
water freezes is a function of the pore size; the gel pores are so small that water cannot freeze
inside them at temperatures above 78 C.(24) The capillary pores are considerably larger and
vary in size, typically ranging from 10 x 10-6 to 50 x 10-6 mm in well hydrated pastes of low
water-cement ratio, whereas in pastes of high water-cement ratio at early ages, size may vary
from 3 x 10-3 to 5 x 10-3 mm. Figure 2 also shows the boundary of an air void, indicating that air
voids are usually several orders of magnitude larger than capillaries and gel pores.
ORIGIN OF AIR IN CONCRETE
All concretes contain natural or entrapped air that is incorporated into concrete during mixing
operations.(25) It is relatively large, often irregularly shaped voids, typically 1 to 10 mm or more
in size. Entrapped air can comprise about 1 to 3 percent of the volume in concrete. Air-entrained
concrete also contains much smaller, spherical air voids ranging from 0.01 mm to 1 mm in
diameter. A typical average size of entrained air voids is about 0.10 mm.(7) Entrained air is
incorporated into the concrete in the same way as entrapped air (mixing); however, entrained air
is stabilized as small bubbles in the fresh cement paste through the action of AEA. A properly
air-entrained concrete may contain 300,000 air voids per cubic centimeter of paste.
Air-Entraining Admixtures (AEA)
Air-entraining agents are admixtures used to stabilize the air entrapped during the mixing in the
form of very small, discrete bubbles known as entrained air.(26)
The air-entraining admixtures are surfactants that possess a hydrocarbon chain terminating in a
hydrophilic polar group. The other end of the chain is hydrophobic and does not mix well with
water. Not all organic materials are suitable for use as air-entraining agents. One of the first used
and most effective is Vinsol resin, which is extracted from pinewood.(26) The earliest work on
freeze-thaw resistance, as well as recommendations for air void systems, were based on research
on concretes containing Vinsol resin admixtures.
Currently, a large number of admixtures are based on synthetic chemicals. They can be divided
into anionic and nonionic. The first, anionic group is composed of alkylarylsulfonates and
alkylsulfates such as sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate. An example of a nonionic agent is
nonylphenolethoxylate.
FREEZE-THAW DAMAGE MECHANISMS
If the aggregates used in concrete are frost-resistant, the freeze-thaw resistance of the cement
paste determines the overall resistance of the concrete to freezing and thawing, as described
below. If the aggregate is susceptible to freeze-thaw damage, it can contribute to concrete
deterioration. Since most aggregates are freeze-thaw resistant and the aggregates used in this
research were durable, this mechanism is not covered in this research.
Several theories have been proposed to explain concrete damage due to freezing and thawing.
Critical Saturation
The critical saturation theory, proposed by Powers,(27) states that concrete will only suffer
damage from freezing when the capillaries in the cement paste are more than 91.7 percent full of
water. This theory is based on the fact that water expands in volume by approximately 9 percent
when it freezes. If the capillary pores are saturated with water and the water freezes, stresses will
be generated. If the pores are only partially filled, the expansion resulting from ice formation
may be accommodated. Critical saturation can occur in localized zones within the cement paste.
Hydraulic Pressure
Powers(4) also put forth the hydraulic pressure theory, which states that damage from freezing is
caused by a buildup of hydraulic pressure from the resistance to flow of unfrozen water in
cement paste capillaries. As water freezes, if the cement paste does not expand to accommodate
it, unfrozen water will be pushed through the capillary pores, away from the sites of freezing,
like water through a pipe. Powers applied Darcys Law to illustrate the factors influencing the
pressure generated by this flow:
h =
l
A
Figure 3. Equation. Pressure gradient.

In the above equation, h is the pressure gradient, is the fluid viscosity, k is the permeability,
Q is the flow rate, l is the length of the flow path, and A is the flow area.. The pressure generated
increases as fluid viscosity, flow rate, or length increase, and as permeability or area decrease.
The fluid viscosity (viscosity of the pore solution (water with dissolved ions)) may not vary
much. Flow rate is related to the rate of freezing (the faster the ice forms, the faster water is
pushed through the capillaries). Permeability and flow area (i.e., size of the capillary pore)
depend on the particular cement paste microstructure. For a given cement paste, pore fluid
viscosity, and flow rate, a maximum length of flow can be calculated by setting the pressure
gradient equal to the tensile strength of the cement paste (i.e., the maximum pressure for which
damage to the paste will not occur):
k A
Q
Figure 4. Equation. Spacing factor.
l = h
Powers called this distance the theoretical permissible spacing between bubbles and estimated its
magnitude to be on the order of 0.20 mm,(4) based on Vinsol resin admixtures.
Ice Accretion and Osmotic Pressure
Powers and Helmuth(24) proposed the ice accretion/osmotic pressure theory to explain
experimental results that were inconsistent with the hydraulic pressure theory. The osmotic
pressure theory stated that, during freezing, water moves from the gel pores to the capillary pores
according to the laws of thermodynamics (diffusion from high to low free energy) and the theory
of osmosis (diffusion along concentration gradients).
As stated before, the freezing temperature of the water depends on the size of the pore. Gel pores
are so small that water cannot freeze in them at temperatures above 78 C. Water, at
temperatures below 0 C, has a higher free energy than ice; therefore, water will flow from gel to
capillaries along a free energy gradient in order to freeze. If sufficient water flows to capillaries
and freezes, the capillary will become full and pressure will develop. This pressure increases the
free energy of the ice (or ice and water) in the capillary. Water will continue to flow to the
capillary until the free energy of the ice and water in the capillary equals the free energy of water
in the gel pores.
Water flow along ion concentration gradients can also occur during freezing. The water in
capillary pores is not pure water but a solution of various ions dissolved in water. Ice, on the
other hand, is pure water. Therefore, when ice forms in a capillary, the concentration of the
remaining unfrozen pore solution increases, thus creating a concentration gradient. Even if the
capillary is full of ice and water, water will flow from the gel (less concentrated) to the capillary
(more concentrated) to equalize the pore solution concentration. This osmotic movement of
water generates pressure.
ROLE OF AIR VOIDS

The theories of damage due to freezing and thawing identify stresses due to excessive pressure
buildup as the cause of damage.
Under the ice accretion theory, water and ice in a capillary pore has a higher free energy than
water or ice in an air void because capillaries are sufficiently small to inhibit the normal growth
of ice crystals, whereas air voids (even the smallest ones) are large enough for ice crystals to
form normally. Therefore, if air voids are present, water will diffuse from both the gel and
capillaries to the air voids. Instead of filling the capillaries and generating pressure, water flows
to the air voids, where (unless the concrete is completely saturated with water) ample space
should be available to accommodate ice formation without pressure buildup. Air voids provide a
similar protective function in the case of osmotic pressure.
In either case, air voids act as pressure relief sites, with each air void protecting a zone of
hardened cement paste surrounding it. Figure 5 illustrates (in two dimensions) air voids
protecting a zone (or shell) of paste. The limit of the protective shell is the maximum distance
from an air void in which excessive pressure (i.e., that exceeding the tensile strength of the
concrete) will not be generated. Thus, the goal of air entrainment is to provide a sufficient
number of well-distributed air voids in the cement paste to ensure that most or all of the paste is
within the required distance of an air void.
Figure 5. Illustration. The darker area shows

the air voids protection zone of concrete.
AIR VOID PARAMETERS
The air void system in concrete can be described using several characteristics, or parameters,
such as volume, number of bubbles, bubble size distribution, and spatial distribution within the
paste. Air volume is the most commonly specified parameter; however, air volume alone is not a
sufficient determinant of freeze-thaw resistance.
In theory, the volume of space needed for the expansion of ice formation is quite small. In a
concrete containing 30 percent paste, and assuming 40 percent capillary porosity in the paste,
only 1.3 percent total air volume is required to accommodate the expansion if the concrete is
fully saturated. Even non-air-entrained concretes routinely contain this much air. However, the
theories of freeze-thaw damage described previously illustrate that it is not the total volume of
air, but rather the presence of a sufficient number of well-distributed air voids, that is critical.
These characteristics are most commonly described in terms of specific surface and spacing
factor.
Specific surface, the ratio of total bubble surface area to total air volume, normally expressed in
mm2/mm3 or inches2/inches3, reflects the relative number and sizes of the air voids. For a given
volume of air, a greater number of smaller air voids results in a higher specific surface area.
Figure 6 shows the same volume of air as figure 5 in smaller voids. These figures indicate that
for a given volume of air, smaller air voids provide more protection than larger voids, as the
number of bubbles will be higher and the distance between them will be less. Specific surface,
then, is an indicator of air void system effectiveness.
Figure 6. Illustration. Smaller air voids have higher

specific surface and a greater number of bubbles than
larger air voids, and offer more protection.
The spacing factor(4) is an empirical quantity intended to represent the maximum distance that
water would have to travel in the cement paste to reach an air void. If this distance is less than
the critical maximum distance at which excessive stresses develop, the concrete should be
adequately protected. The spacing factor was derived from a hypothetical air void system
consisting of single-sized air voids arranged in a cubic lattice. In reality, voids are multisized and
distributed randomly through the cement paste. Therefore, a distribution of spacings (distances
from different points in the paste to the nearest air void) exists.(28)
Nevertheless, much research has shown a relationship between spacing factor and concrete
freeze-thaw durability (Klieger studies), at least for concretes containing admixtures available at
the time of the research (Vinsol resin). Specific surface and spacing factor can be determined
from ASTM C457(18) measurements.
Often-quoted rules of thumb for these parameters are: 61 percent air, specific surface 24
mm2/mm3, and spacing factor 0.20 mm. However, air content and specific surface cannot be
viewed as independent. A specific surface of 24 mm2/mm3 at an air volume of 6 percent may be
adequate, but a specific surface of 24 mm2/mm3 for an air volume of 4 percent may not be
adequate. This concept is illustrated in figure 7, which shows a concrete volume containing twothirds the volume of the air of figure 6 in identically sized voids (and therefore, with identical
specific surface). Even with the voids spaced so their protected shells do not overlap, the
unprotected area is significantly greater at the lower air void content.
Figure 7. Illustration. Protection zone for

a lower air void content.
Because air volume and specific surface must be considered in tandem, total bubble surface area
(the product of air volume and specific surface) has been proposed as an appropriate
parameter.(29)
In practice, air content is usually the only parameter that is specified. That is because until the
recent advent of AVA, which estimates the spacing factor from measurements on fresh concrete,
the only means of determining the spacing factor was ASTM C457(18) (hardened concrete). Air
content is usually tested in the field using the pressure-meter method (ASTM C231(14) and
AASHTO T 152(15)) or the volumetric method (ASTM C 173(16) and AASHTO T196(17)), or it
can be also calculated gravimetrically (ASTM C 138(30) or AASHTO T 121(31)) from concrete
density (unit weight). However, the air content alone may not indicate the adequacy of freezethaw protection. As previously stated, it is the volume, number, and size distribution (taken
together) that determine the quality of the air void system. Furthermore, the stability of the air
void system (and thus, the air content and other parameters) may be affected by a number of
materials, as well as environmental and construction variablesmix proportions, mixing time,
haul time, pumping, spreading, vibration, and finishing. Thus there is no guarantee that the air
10
void system in the concrete, as placed, is the same as the air void system of the concrete sampled
at the truck chute or from the grade.
FREEZE-THAW TESTING
The AASHTO T-161(20) and ASTM C666 Resistance of Concrete to Freezing and Thawing(21)
are the standard laboratory test methods for assessing concretes resistance to freezing and
thawing. The test method uses concrete specimens (of widths and depths from 76 mm to 127 mm
and lengths between 279 mm to 406 mm) that are subjected to temperature cycling from 4 C
to 18 C. The duration of the cycles is 2 to 5 hours. The freezing portion of the cycle is
accomplished by air cooling (similar to air conditioning); the thawing portion, by submersion
in water.
Freezing rate is an important factor. In pastes of ordinary porosity, where hydraulic pressure is
the main mechanism of deterioration, fast freezing in the laboratory promotes more severe
concrete degradation than in the field. In dense pastes, where growth of capillary ice is the main
cause of damage, fast freezing in the laboratory promotes milder degradation than in the field.(32)
There are two standard procedures, designated Procedure A and Procedure B. In Procedure A,
the prisms are placed in containers (usually stainless steel) with approximately 3 mm space
between the prism and the bottom and sides of the container. The container is filled with water,
thereby surrounding the specimen on all sides (including the top) with water for the duration of
testing. Figure 8 shows a photograph of a vertical container. Some equipment provides for
horizontal containers. This study uses vertical containers. In Procedure B, the specimens are
placed directly into the freeze-thaw chamber with no container or other covering.
Figure 8. Photo. Vertical container for freeze-thaw

concrete specimen (ASTM C 666 Procedure A).
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT USING MODAL TESTING
Modal testing is a nondestructive method for assessing the dynamic response of structures. This
method uses sinusoidal excitation for the input signal and forces the specimen to vibrate at a
frequency as the response of the specimen is monitored with an accelerometer.(33)
11
ASTM C215(22) uses modal testing to assess damage to beams undergoing freeze-thaw testing. A
natural frequency of vibration is a characteristic (dynamic property) of an elastic system.
Assuming a homogeneous, isotropic, elastic material, the dynamic modulus of elasticity is
related to the resonant frequency and density.
Resonance manifests itself as a great increase in amplitude of oscillation when a system is driven
at a certain frequency. The natural frequency (resonant frequency) is the characteristic frequency
at which maximum response (amplitude) occurs.
Two methods for measuring resonant frequency are described in ASTM C215(22): sinusoidal
excitation (forced oscillation) and impact excitation. The classic ASTM C215(22) forced
resonance setup uses either transverse or longitudinal resonance. In the longitudinal mode, the
oscillator is at one end and the pickup is at the other. In the transverse mode, the oscillator is in
the middle of the top surface, and the pickup is at one end of the top surface.
The ASTM C215(22) impact method uses a modally tuned impact hammer to excite vibrations in
the beam and an accelerometer attached to the beam to record the response. ASTM C215(22)
shows schematics of the impact resonance test setup. Modal tuning enables the isolation of the
hammers response from the structural response, thus providing an accurate measurement of the
specimen response and not the combined system (impact hammer and structure) response.(34)
The resonant frequency of a concrete prism varies depending on the testing mode and the
orientation of the prism. The resonant frequency in the longitudinal direction is typically much
higher (on the order of 5000 Hz) than the transverse resonant frequency (on the order of 2500
Hz). The resonant frequency for a prism with a rectangular cross section is lower when the prism
is supported on the wider edge.
In the present study, the impact test method was used to measure transverse frequency, following
the setup used by Clarke.(35) Appendix D presents more details about this method. The test setup
is shown in figure 9. The rectangular test prisms (75 mm by 100 mm by 400 mm) were placed
with the narrow edge (75 mm) down on piano wire supports located at the nodal points (0.224 by
prism length from the end of the specimen).
Figure 9. Photo. ASTM C 215 test setup.
12
The procedure used to assess damage begins by removing the beam from the freeze-thaw
chamber, and after the thawing cycle is finished, towel drying (to saturated, surface dry (SSD))
the beam and weighing it. The specimen is placed on the piano wire supports, and an
accelerometer (output signal) is attached to one end of the beam using vacuum grease. Using the
impact hammer, the beam is tapped at its opposite end, and the time domain response data
(impulse versus time and response versus time) are recorded using appropriate equipment.
Figures 10 and 11 are examples of time domain impulse and response data, respectively.
Figure 10. Graph. Time domain impulse data.
Figure 11. Graph. Time domain response data.

Dynamic signal analysis software (Virtual Bench Dynamic Signal Analyzer (DSA)) can then be
used to transform the time domain data to the frequency domain (using the Fast Fourier
Transform (FFT)) to determine the frequency response curve and to determine the resonant
13
frequency. A typical frequency response curve is shown in figure 12. The resonant frequency is
the frequency (x-axis value) at the maximum amplitude of the frequency response curve.
Figure 12. Graph. Frequency response curve.

Testing is repeated at regular intervalsusually every 10 to 30 cycles (depending on expected
freeze-thaw behavior). The relative dynamic modulus (RDM), expressed in percentage, is
calculated as follows:
Pc =
nc2
100
n2
Figure 13. Equation. Relative dynamic modulus.
where c is the number of cycles of freezing and thawing, nc is the resonant frequency after c
cycles, and n is the initial resonant frequency (at zero cycles).
The durability factor (DF) is defined as:
N
Pc
M
Figure 14. Equation. Durability factor.
DF =
where Pc is the relative dynamic modulus, N is the number of cycles completed, and M is the
planned duration of testing (usually 300 cycles). Testing is usually halted when the relative
dynamic modulus falls below 5060 percent of its initial value.
If the concrete is not adequately protected by air entrainment, microcracking occurs with each
cycle of freezing and thawing. Microcracks increase damping in the beam, thereby reducing the
vibration amplitude and flattening the frequency response curve. Cracking also causes the
resonant frequency to decreasewaves take longer to travel through the concrete when it
contains cracks (figure 15).
14
Frequency amplitude (V)
7.000
6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
1400
1700
2000
2300
2600
2900
Frequency (Hz)
31 cycles
0 Cycles
Figure 15. Graph. Effect of freeze-thaw cycling on the resonant frequency curve
of a non-air-entrained concrete after 31 cycles when concrete failure
was achieved (mix 302beam A, see chapter 5).
15
CHAPTER 3: EFFECT OF AIR CONTENT AND

W/C ON FREEZE-THAW RESISTANCE
In order to evaluate the relation between concrete microstructure and its freeze-thaw resistance,
an experiment was designed for concretes with fresh air contents (total air) ranging from 2.5 to
4.5 percent and w/c ranging from 0.4 to 0.5; freeze-thaw testing was performed using ASTM C
666,(21) Procedure A. Specimens were monitored for changes in resonant frequency (ASTM C
215(22)) and mass at regular intervals. ASTM C457(18) air void system evaluations (both modified
point count and linear traverse) were conducted on hardened specimens from each mix.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
The experiment was designed as a central composite design in the two variables, with a total of
13 mixes (4 factorial points, 4 axial points, and 5 center points). Central composite design,
(which is enhanced factorial design), is widely used for fitting a second-order response surface. It
allows estimation of a full quadratic model for each response. Response surface methodology
consists of a set of statistical methods normally applied in situations where several factors (for
instance, the proportions of individual materials in concrete)in this case w/c ratio and air
entrainedinfluence one or more performance characteristics, or responses (freeze-thaw
resistance, for example).
The experiment design of this study consists of 2k factorial points, 2*k axial points, and 5 center
points, where k is the independent variable (in this case 2). The design is shown in table 1.
Shaded mixes represent the control mix (center point), which was repeated several times.
Table 1. Experiment design for mixes 115118.
Run #
Mix ID
W/C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
115-1
115-2
115-3
116-1
116-2
116-3
117-1
117-2
117-3
117-4
118-1
118-2
118-3
0.45
0.45
0.40
0.45
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.50
0.45
0.45
0.50
0.45
0.40
Total fresh air

(%)
3.5
3.5
4.5
3.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
2.5
4.5
3.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
Point type
Center
Center
Factorial
Center
Factorial
Axial
Axial
Factorial
Axial
Center
Factorial
Center
Axial
Materials included Type I Portland cement (ASTM C 150(36)), #57 crushed limestone coarse
aggregate, ASTM C33(37) natural sand (quartz), and tap water (material properties can be found in
17
appendix A). The air-entraining admixture was a Vinsol resin-based admixture meeting ASTM C
260(38) (AASHTO M154(39)). Concrete was mixed in a 0.25 m3 drum mixer according to ASTM
C192.(40) The batch size was 0.07 m3. Mix proportions actually used are shown in table 2.
Fresh concrete tests included slump (ASTM C 143(41)), fresh air content (ASTM C231(14)), and
unit weight (ASTM C 138(41)). Five 75- by 100- by 400-mm prisms (for freeze-thaw testing) and
eight 100- by 200-mm cylinders (for strength testing and ASTM C457 evaluations(18)) were cast
for each mix. Admixture dose is given in liters (L) per 100 kg of cement.
Table 2. Mixture proportions for mixes 115118.
Mix ID
W/C
115-1
115-2
115-3
116-1
116-2
116-3
117-1
117-2
117-3
117-4
118-1
118-2
118-3
0.45*
0.45
0.40
0.45
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.50
0.45
0.45
0.50
0.45
0.40
Coarse agg
(SSD)
kilogram
(kg)/m3
976
978
978
970
979
980
979
978
975
976
978
978
981
Fine agg
(SSD)
kg/m3
Cement
kg/m3
Water
kg/m3
866
870
891
889
944
898
825
850
854
869
797
870
920
355
355
355
352
356
356
356
355
355
355
355
355
357
163
160
142
159
142
160
178
178
160
160
178
160
143
AEA
L/100 kg
0.033
0.033
0.072
0.007
0.003
0.008
0.023
0.002
0.046
0.028
0.043
0.023
0.036
WRA
L/100 kg
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.319
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
0.260
* Actual as-batched w/c was 0.46 for this mix .

WRAwater reducing admixture
RESULTS
The fresh concrete properties for each mix are shown in table 3.
Slumps were quite low at w/c of 0.40 and 0.45 (13 mm or less) but increased to 50 mm or more
at w/c=0.50. Slump also increased slightly with air content at w/c=0.50.
The mean 28-day strengths (21-day strengths for mixes 115-1, 115-2, and 115-3) and standard
deviations are shown in table 4.
18
Table 3. Fresh concrete properties for mixes 115118.

Mix ID
W/C
115-1
115-2
115-3
116-1
116-2
116-3
117-1
117-2
117-3
117-4
118-1
118-2
118-3
0.46
0.45
0.40
0.45
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.50
0.45
0.45
0.50
0.45
0.40
Slump
(mm)
0
5
0
15
0
15
65
50
0
15
70
5
0
Total air
content (%)
3.6
3.6
4.6
3.4
2.5
2.4
3.5
2.7
4.4
3.8
4.6
3.6
3.3
Unit weight
(kg/m3)
2361
2368
2374
2379
2401
2416
2390
2366
2371
2358
2352
2377
2387
Table 4. 28-Day strength results for mixes 115118.

Mix ID
W/C
Total fresh
air content
(%)
1151*
1152*
1153*
1161
1162
1163
1171
1172
1173
1174
1181
1182
1183
0.46
0.45
0.40
0.45
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.50
0.45
0.45
0.50
0.45
0.40
3.6
3.6
4.6
3.4
2.5
2.4
3.5
2.7
4.4
3.8
4.6
3.6
3.3
Mean 28-day
strength*
(megapascals
(MPa))
39.9
43.1
43.1
50.3
53.2
50.3
38.6
40.8
44.3
46.3
41.0
49.0
49.3
Std. dev.
(MPa)
0.3
1.6
1.7
1.4
0.2
0.8
5.8
1.0
1.5
4.8
1.3
0.8
0.0
* 21-day strengths are reported for 115-1, 115-2, and 115-3. All results based
on 2 tests of 100- by 200-mm cylinders.
19
The results of freeze-thaw testing are summarized in table 5. DF ranged from 3.3 to 94.8 percent.
With one exception (mix 116-1), mixes with greater than 3.0 percent fresh air content performed
well (DF > 80) through more than 300 cycles of freezing and thawing. All specimens suffered
some mass change (loss) during testing. Mass losses ranged from 0.61 to 3.66 percent. The mass
loss can be attributed to surface scaling, which occurred on all beams. Any mass gain resulting
from water entering the concrete through cracks was obscured by the losses due to scaling.
Table 5. Summary of freeze-thaw test results for mixes 115118.
Mix ID
W/C
Fresh air
(%)
115-1
115-2
115-3
116-1
116-2
116-3
117-1
117-2
117-3
117-4
118-1
118-2
118-3
0.46
0.45
0.40
0.45
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.50
0.45
0.45
0.50
0.45
0.40
3.6
3.6
4.6
3.4
2.5
2.4
3.5
2.7
4.4
3.8
4.6
3.6
3.3
Cycles
Final RDM
(%)
DF (%)
300
300
300
103
132
191
303*
38
303*
303*
300
300
300
84.2
80.3
85.7
51.5
48.0
57.7
89.6
26.4
90.9
90.3
94.8
92.7
92.4
84.2
80.3
85.7
17.7
21.1
36.7
90.5
3.3
91.8
91.2
94.8
92.7
92.4
Mass
change
(%)
3.66
3.28
2.63
0.66
0.61
2.60
3.53
0.13
3.39
1.88
1.73
1.18
0.92
* The values of DF are corrected to 300 cycles. The actual relative dynamic modulus is
shown in final RDM column.
Not included when averaging center mixes.
Tables 6 and 7 summarize the results of ASTM C457(18) modified point count (MPC) and linear
traverse (LT) evaluations on polished surfaces cut axially from 100- by 200-mm cylinders.
The significantly different freeze-thaw resistance of mix 116-1, when compared to the other
center mixes, and its low durability factor can be explained by its air void system. It seems that
the fresh air content of mix 116-1 was not properly determined, so although the percentage of
fresh air showed to be within the target range, both modified point count and linear traverse
results show a different scenario. Not only was the air content much lower than the other center
mixes, but also the specific surface was much lower and the spacing factor was much higher. As
a result, when averaging center mixes, mix 116-1 is disregarded.
20
Table 6. Modified point count (MPC) results for mixes 115118.

Mix ID
115-1
115-2
115-3
116-1
116-2
116-3
117-1
117-2
117-3
117-4
118-1
118-2
118-3
Fresh
air
(%)
3.6
3.6
4.6
3.4
2.5
2.4
3.5
2.7
4.4
3.8
4.6
3.6
3.3
Air
(%)
Paste
(%)
Voids
counted
MCL
(mm)
Voids
per m
4.0
3.7
4.1
2.5
3.7
2.4
6.2
3.8
4.6
5.0
7.2
3.9
3.9
28.0
25.5
27.0
28.5
28.4
28.1
25.4
26.8
30.7
29.5
26.2
27.1
26.6
313
219
321
109
127
132
400
105
394
300
658
264
243
0.302
0.385
0.286
0.525
0.660
0.404
0.353
0.822
0.264
0.386
0.249
0.330
0.364
138
96
142
49
55
59
175
47
173
132
289
116
106
Specific
surface
(mm-1)
13.6
10.6
14.5
7.6
6.1
10.0
11.3
4.9
15.2
10.7
16.2
12.5
10.5
Spacing
factor
(mm)
0.406
0.521
0.381
0.876
0.940
0.686
0.368
1.118
0.343
0.483
0.229
0.445
0.483
Notes: All results are averages of two tests on two different polished surfaces.
MCL=Mean chord length
Table 7. Linear traverse (LT) results for mixes 115118.

Mix ID
Fresh air
(%)
Air
(%)
Voids
counted
MCL
(mm)
Voids
per m
115-1
115-2
115-3
116-1
116-2
116-3
117-1
117-2
117-3
117-4
118-1
118-2
118-3
3.6
3.6
4.6
3.4
2.5
2.4
3.5
2.7
4.4
3.8
4.6
3.6
3.3
4.8
6.1
5.3
3.8
4.9
3.6
5.4
4.1
5.3
4.9
5.6
4.2
3.9
386
300
463
140
192
178
393
127
473
327
581
276
221
0.282
0.465
0.262
0.612
0.587
0.460
0.315
0.732
0.257
0.345
0.221
0.345
0.399
169
130
201
63
83
79
173
55
209
142
256
122
98
Specific
surface
(mm-1)
14.1
8.6
15.3
6.5
6.8
8.7
12.7
5.5
15.6
11.6
18.1
11.5
10.0
Spacing
factor
(mm)
0.363
0.533
0.320
0.879
0.744
0.673
0.381
1.011
0.315
0.437
0.264
0.472
0.564
Notes: All results are based on one test.

Spacing factors were calculated using paste content from MPC.
MCL=Mean chord length
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Figures 1618 show the influence of the air content (based on fresh air content) on durability. It
can be observed that the mixes with fresh air content in the levels of 3.5 percent and 4.5 percent
21
present similar freeze-thaw resistance. They last at least 300 cycles and their durability factors are
higher than 80 percent, except for mix 116-1. On the other hand, the mixes with air content around
2.5 percent present much lower freeze-thaw resistance. A correlation of 0.78 was obtained between
fresh air content and durability factor. The legends in the figures indicate the mix ID for the plotted
points, and text boxes in the figure provide a summary of air content, and DF for each mix. The
center mixes are represented by their average RDM (mix 116-1 was not included).
W/C = 0.4
A = 3.3 %
DF = 92.4
120
RDM (%)
100
80
60
40
A = 4.6 %
DF = 85.7
A = 2.5 %
DF = 21.1
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Cycles
116-2
118-3
115-3
Figure 16. Graph. Relative dynamic modulus versus cycles

for mixes with water-cement ratio=0.40.
W/C = 0.45
A = 4.4 %
DF = 91.8
120
RDM (%)
100
80
60
A = 3.7 %
DF = 87.1
A = 2.4 %
DF = 36.7
40
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Cycles
116-3
control
117-3

22
350
W/C = 0.5
A = 4.6 %
DF = 94.8
120
RDM (%)
100
80
A = 3.5 %
DF = 90.5
60
40
A = 2.7 %
DF = 30.3
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Cycles
117-2
117-1
118-1

The water-cement ratio (within the range tested) does not appear to play a significant role on the
freeze-thaw resistance (figures 19 and 20). The correlation between water-cement ratio and
durability factor was 0.04. Only for mixes with designed air content of 2.5 percent (figure 21),
the mix with w/c=0.5 (117-2) shows a much lower freeze-thaw resistance. Nevertheless, this
difference in performance seems to be much more related to the air void system (low specific
surface and high spacing factor) than to the w/c ratio. It is confirmed if mixes 116-2 and 116-3
are compared, where the latter presents higher specific surface, lower spacing factor, and as a
result, better freeze-thaw resistance.
designed air 3.5%

w/c = 0.4
DF = 92.4%
120
RDM (%)
100
80
60
w/c = 0.5
DF = 87.1%
w/c = 0.45
DF = 84.9%
40
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Cycles
118-3
Control
117-1

for mixes with designed air void content of 3.5 percent.
23
350
designed air 4.5%

w/c = 0.5
DF = 94.8%
120
RDM (%)
100
w/c = 0.45
DF = 91.8%
80
w/c = 0.4
DF = 85.7%
60
40
20
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Cycles
115-3
117-3
118-1

designed air 2.5%

120
RDM (%)
100
w/c = 0.45
DF = 36.7%
80
60
w/c = 0.5
DF = 3.3%
40
20
w/c = 0.4
DF = 21.1%
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Cycles
116-2
116-3
117-2

The mass change over cycles can be associated with concrete deterioration. A mass gain can be
an indication of cracking formation and water absorption through the cracks. On the other hand,
24
the mass loss can also be related to concrete deterioration in the case where concrete specimens
scale significantly during testing. This set of mixes (115118) did not show any mass gain. Also,
the mass loss did not present any trend in relation to air void system parameters (figures 2224).
w/c = 0.4
Mass change (%)
1.00
A = 3.3%
0.00
-1.00
A = 2.5%
-2.00
-3.00
A = 4.6%
-4.00
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Cycles
116.2
118-3
115-3
Figure 22. Graph. Mass change versus cycles for mixes with water-cement ratio=0.40.
w/c = 0.45
Mass change (%)
1.00
0.00
-1.00
A = 3.7%
-2.00
A = 2.4%
-3.00
A = 4.4%
-4.00
0
50
100
150
116-3
200
Cycles
control
250
300
350
117-3
25
Mass change (%)
w/c = 0.5
1.00
A = 2.7%
0.00
-1.00
-2.00
A = 4.6%
-3.00
A = 3.5%
-4.00
0
50
100
150
200
Cycles
117-2
117-1
250
300
350
118-1
In terms of air measurement, the fresh air void content, when measured according to ASTM C
231,(14) was always lower than the linear traverse air volume (measured according to ASTM C
457(18)) and, in most of the cases, lower than the modified point count, as well (figure 25).
Figure 25. Graph. Comparison among modified point count test,

linear traverse test, and fresh air content.
26
The spacing factor versus the relative dynamic modulus (figure 26) shows a clear trend (with
correlation of 0.91): the higher the spacing factor, the lower the RDM. The specific surface
shows the same trend (figure 27) but with a lower correlation (0.77).
100
RDM (%)
80
60
40
20
0
0
0.5
1.5
Spacing factor (mm)
Figure 26. Graph. Relation between spacing factor and relative dynamic modulus.
100
RDM (%)
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
15
20
Specific surface (mm-1)
Figure 27. Graph. Relation between specific surface and relative dynamic modulus.
27
CHAPTER 4: USE OF SYNTHETIC AIR-ENTRAINING ADMIXTURE
The scarcity of Vinsol resin admixture is responsible for the increasing use of synthetic
admixtures. The freeze-thaw performance of marginal air mixes containing synthetic admixtures
was investigated in a comparison with Vinsol resin. This experiment was made up of concretes
with a wide range of air contents, batched with two different air-entraining admixtures (AEA),
Vinsol and a synthetic. Freeze-thaw testing was performed using ASTM C 666(21)), Procedure A.
Specimens were monitored for changes in resonant frequency (ASTM C 215(22)) and mass at
regular intervals. ASTM C457(18) air void system evaluations (both modified point count and
linear traverse) were conducted on hardened specimens from each mix.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Two sets of tests were performedone for each of the two air-entraining admixtures: set 1
containing Vinsol resin air-entraining admixture and set 2 containing synthetic air-entraining
admixture. The mix proportion of the two sets was the same. Each set consisted of five concrete
mixtures proportioned with w/c ratios of 0.45 and target fresh air contents of 2.5 to 4.5 percent,
in increments of 0.5 percent. In set 1, an additional non-air-entrained concrete mixture was also
proportioned. The materials used are shown in table 8.
Table 8. Materials used for set 1 (mixes 223302Vinsol resin (VR) AEA)
and set 2 (346350(synthetic) SYN AEA).
Component
Water
Cement
Fine aggregate
Coarse aggregate
AEA type
WRA
Set 1 (223302VR AEA))

Municipal tap water
Type I
Natural sand
#57 Crushed limestone
Vinsol resin
ASTM C 494 Type A*(42)
Set 2 (346350SYN AEA))

Municipal tap water
Type I
Natural sand
#57 Crushed limestone
Synthetic
ASTM C 494 Type A*(42)
* The water reducer admixture used in both sets was the same and meet the requirements of
ASTM C 494(42) Type A, water-reducing, Type B, retarding, and Type D, water-reducing
and retarding, admixtures.
The mixture proportions used for sets 1 and 2 are shown in tables 9 and 10.
Table 9. Mixture proportions for set 1 (223302)w/c=0.45.
Mix Target air
(%)
ID
223
224
225
226
227
302
4.0
3.5
3.0
4.5
2.5
Coarse agg
(SSD)
kg/m3
1015
1015
1015
1015
1015
1015
Fine agg
(SSD)
kg/m3
836
836
836
836
836
876
29
Cement
kg/m3
Water
kg/m3
356
356
356
356
356
356
160
160
160
160
160
160
Vinsol
AEA
L/100kg
0.033
0.026
0.035
0.048
0.013
0.000
WRA
L/100kg
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.415
Table 10. Mixture proportions for set 2 (mixes 346350)w/c=0.45

Mix ID
348
346
347
349
350
Target Coarse agg

(SSD)
air
(%)
kg/m3
2.5
1015
3.0
1015
3.5
1015
4.0
1015
4.5
1015
Fine agg
(SSD)
kg/m3
857
861
857
805
805
Cement
kg/m3
Water
kg/m3
356
356
356
356
356
160
160
160
160
160
Synthetic
WRA
AEA
L/100kg
L/100kg
0.028
0.266
0.039
0.266
0.016
0.266
0.079
0.266
0.138
0.266
The concrete was mixed in batches of 0.042 m3 in a drum mixer with 0.125 m3 capacity. From
each mix in set 1 (223302), three 100- by 200-mm cylinders for compressive strength and five
75- by 100- by 400-mm beams for freeze-thaw testing were cast. Two cylinders 150- by 300mm were cast for air void system analysis (ASTM C 457(18)). From each mix in set 2, the same
number and type of cylinders were cast along with four beams (same size as set 1).
For set 1, using the Vinsol resin AEA, the mix sequence was as follows:
1. The coarse and fine aggregates were added to the mixer and mixed for 30 seconds.
2. The AEA was added to part of the water, the AEA and water were added to the mixer, and
the materials were mixed for 30 seconds.
3. The WRA was added to the remaining water, the WRA and water were added to the mixer,
the cement was added to the mixer, and the materials were mixed for 4 minutes.
4. The mixer was stopped for a 2-minute rest period.
5. The materials were mixed for 2 additional minutes.
For set 2, using the synthetic AEA, various trial mix sequences were carried out until the target
air content was achieved. The final mix sequence used was quite different from the regular mix
procedures used, including the use of warm water and the addition of the two admixtures at the
same time:
1. The coarse and fine aggregates were added to mixer and mixed for 30 seconds.
2. The AEA and WRA were added to the entire amount of water, the AEA, WRA, and water
were added to the mixer, and the materials were mixed for 30 seconds.
3. The cement was added to the mixer and the materials were mixed for 3 minutes.
4. The mixer was stopped for a 3-minute rest period.
5. The materials were mixed for 2 additional minutes.
30
In set 1, the admixtures were added to the mix separately (AEA first, then WRA); the water was
at room temperature. In set 2, however, both admixtures were added at the same time (in
accordance with the manufacturers recommendations), and the mixing water was warm (around
38 C), in order to reduce the amount of air entrained. This procedure was necessary because,
even when very small amounts of AEA were used, the air content produced exceeded the target
values. In both sets of mixes, the coarse aggregates were batched dry, while the sand was
batched moist. For each mix, the mixing water contents were adjusted accordingly.
All test specimens were cured in saturated limewater at 232 C. Compressive strength cylinders
were cured for 28 days and freeze-thaw specimens for 14 days. The cylinder ends were ground in
a concrete end grinder prior to strength testing per ASTM C 39.(43)
The specimens were tested in accordance with ASTM C666, Procedure A.(21) The specimens
were monitored for changes in resonant frequency in accordance with ASTM C 215(22) and for
mass changes (to the nearest 1 g) at regular intervals. ASTM C457(18) air void system evaluations
(both modified point count and linear traverse) were conducted on hardened specimens from
each mix.
RESULTS
The fresh concrete properties for sets 1 and 2 are shown in tables 11 and 12, respectively. A
tolerance of 0.2 percent (deviation from target value) for fresh air content was considered
acceptable.
Table 11. Fresh concrete properties for set 1
(VR AEA).
Mix ID
223
224
225
226
227
302
Slump
(mm)
44
51
44
25
44
25
Air content
(%)
4.0
3.6
3.1
4.7
2.7
2.0
Unit weight
(kg/m3)
2368
2379
2397
2349
2393
2400
Table 12. Fresh concrete properties for set 2

(SYN AEA).
Mix ID
346
347
348
349
350
Slump
(mm)
25
19
19
25
25
Air content
(%)
3.2
3.5
2.3
4.0
4.3
31
Unit weight
(kg/m3)
2363
2360
2390
2345
2339
The strength test results are shown in tables 13 and 14.

Table 13. 28-Day strengths for set 1 (VR AEA).
Mix ID
W/C
223
224
225
226
227
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
302
0.45
Fresh air
content
(%)
4.0
3.2
3.1
4.7
2.7
Mean 28-day
strength
(MPa)
36.4
39.4
38.5
38.1
43.2
2.0 (Non-airentrained)
49.5
Std. dev.
(MPa)
2.0
1.6
1.8
1.3
0.1
4.1
All results based on 3 tests of 100- by 200-mm cylinders.
Table 14. 28-Day strengths for set 2 (SYN AEA).

Mix ID
W/C
346
347
348
349
350
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
Fresh air
content
(%)
3.2
3.5
2.3
4.0
4.3
Mean 28-day
strength
(MPa)
44.8
35.0
42.5
38.1
32.6
Std. dev.
(MPa)
1.0
1.2
1.0
0.4
1.8
All results based on 3 tests of 100- by 200-mm cylinders
Table 15 presents the air void system for set 1 (223227). The air void parameters were
determined according to ASTM C 457(18) (linear traverse) and represent the average of two
measurements. The combined linear traverse and point count results can be found in appendix B.
The air system of mix 302 (set 1) (non-entrained-air concrete) was not determined.
Table 15. Air void system of set 1 (VR AEA) measured by linear traverse.
Chord
Fresh air
Air (%)
Mix
length
(ASTM C 231) ASTM C 457
(mm)
223
4
2.4
55
224
3.6
2.8
64
225
3.1
4.2
94
226
4.7
4.7
106
227
2.7
3.3
74
Voids
counted
276
215
288
495
212
Mean chord
Specific
Spacing
Voids
length
surface
factor
per m
(mm)
(mm2/mm3) (mm)
0.22
120
19.9
0.38
0.30
93
13.5
0.49
0.33
126
12.2
0.45
0.21
215
18.7
0.28
0.35
93
11.5
0.54
All mixes of set 1 presented marginal air void contents. The spacing factors were higher than the
maximum value (0.2 mm) normally required for a good freeze-thaw resistance (most of them
were above 0.36 mm) and the specific surface areas were lower than the normally desired
32
(24 mm-1) for the total air volume in the range of the mixes for this study. Some of the mixes had
specific surface area half of that, for example mix 227.
One could expect that the freeze-thaw performance of those mixes would not be adequate.
Nevertheless, table 16 shows that DFs were above 80 percent, excepting for the non-airentrained mix 302, which could be considered a satisfactory performance. All the air-entrained
mixes withstood at least 300 cycles, excluding beam 224-A5 that suffered some damage during
the handling of the specimen not related to testing. The tables and the graphs of the RDM over
cycles can be found in appendix B.
Table 16. Durability factorresults for set 1 (VR AEA).
Results are sorted by percent fresh air content.
Durability factor
Mix
Fresh air
(%)
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
302
227
225
224
223
226
2.0 non A/E

2.7
3.1
3.6
4.0
4.7
14.4
86.7
89.4
85.7
89.6
92.1
14.5
88.1
90.5
87.2
88.5
94.0
16.7
86.8
90.0
85.4
89.7
93.0
12.1
89.9
90.8
84.4
84.4
95.0
15.4
76.8
88.2
00.0*
92.0
95.3
Proc A
avg
14.4
87.9
90.2
85.7
88.9
93.5
Proc A
std dev
1.9
1.5
0.6
1.2
2.8
1.3
* The DF for 224-A5 was not included when calculating averages and standard deviations.
Figure 28 shows the RDM versus cycles for one of the air entrained concretes (mix 225), which
is representative of the mixes of set 1, excepting mix 302 (figure 29).
A1
120
RDM (%)
100
A2
80
60
A3
40
A4
20
0
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
A5
Cycles
Figure 28. Graph. Relative dynamic modulus versus cycles for mix 225
(VR AEA3.1 percent fresh air content). Individual specimens are shown.
A stands for specimens tested according to Procedure A.
33
RDM (%)
A1
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
A2
A3
A4
0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
A5
Cycles
Figure 29. Graph. Relative dynamic modulus versus cycles for mix 302
(non-air-entrained). Individual specimens are shown. A stands
for specimens tested according to Procedure A.
Set 2 presented a much better air system, with respect to spacing factor and specific surface area,
but most of the mixes remained in the range of marginal air void parameters (table 17). The air
void parameters were determined according to ASTM C 457(18) (linear traverse) and represented
the average of two measurements. Figures 30 and 31 show the differences in the air void chord
size distributions from linear traverse results for the two different admixture types, sets 1 and 2,
respectively. It is important to mention that the air was well distributed and no clustering was
observed.
Table 17. Air void system of mixes 346350 (set 2SYN AEA)
measured by linear traverse.
Mix
346
347
348
349
350
Accum.
Accum. Mean chord
Fresh air
Air (%)
chord
voids
length
(ASTM C 231) ASTM C 457 length
counted
(mm)
(mm)
3.2
4.4
101
632
0.16
3.5
4.6
104
642
0.16
2.3
4.2
95
352
0.27
4
4.5
101
887
0.11
4.3
5.0
114
966
0.12
34
Voids
per m
280
280
154
388
423
Specific Spacing
surface
factor
(mm2/mm3) (mm)
25.2
25.0
15.0
35.3
33.8
0.21
0.22
0.37
0.15
0.15
Bubble number
400
223 (4.0%)
224 (3.6%)
225 (3.1%)
226 (4.7%)
227 (2.7%)
300
200
100
1000-3000
500-750
350-400
250-300
200-225
150-175
100-125
50-75
0-25
Bubble size (micron)

Figure 30. Graph. Bubble size distribution by C 457 (linear traverse)
of set 1 with Vinsol resin admixture.
Bubble number
400
346
347
348
349
350
300
200
100
(3 .2 % )
(3 .5 % )
(2 .3 % )
(4 .0 % )
(4 .3 % )
1000-3000
500-750
350-400
250-300
200-225
150-175
100-125
50-75
0-25
B u b b le size (m icro n )
Figure 31. Graph. Bubble size distribution by C 457 (linear traverse)
of set 2 with synthetic air-entraining admixture.
However, the freeze-thaw performance of set 2 was worse than that of set 1 (table18 and figures
3235). Only mix 350 (the highest air volume, lowest spacing factor, and highest specific
surface) had a DF above 80 percent. The tables of the RDM over cycles and the combined linear
traverse and point count results can be found in appendix B.
35
Table 18. Durability factorresults for set 2 (SYN AEA).

Results are sorted by percentage of fresh air.
A1
A2
A3
A4
38.3
66.2
68.0
82.4
76.6
22.2
46.0
78.3
62.5
86.2
29.4
56.9
77.1
50.6
83.1
24.9
53.4
78.8
66.9
83.5
Proc A
avg
28.7
55.6
75.6
65.6
82.3
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Factor (%)
348
346
347
349
350
Fresh air
(%)
2.3
3.2
3.5
4.0
4.3
Durability
Mix
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
Designed Fresh Air (%)

Set 1 (VR AEA)
Set 2 (SYN AEA)
Figure 32. Graph. Comparison between mixes prepared with

Vinsol resin air-entrained admixture (set 1) and
synthetic air-entrained admixture (set 2).
36
Proc A
std dev
7.1
8.4
5.1
13.2
4.1
120
Factor (%)
Durability
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
Spacing factor (mm)

Set 1 (VR AEA)
Set 2 (SYN AEA)
Figure 33. Graph. Relation between durability factor and spacing factor of
mixes with Vinsol resin admixture (set 1) or synthetic admixture (set 2).
120
Factor (%)
Durability
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
20
30
40
Specific surface (mm-1)

Set 1 (VR AEA)
Set 2 (SYN AEA)
Figure 34. Graph. Relation between durability factor and specific surface of
mixes with Vinsol resin admixture (set 1) or synthetic admixture (set 2).
37
Factor (%)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
Air ASTM C 457 (%)

Set 1 (VR AEA)
Set 2 (SYN AEA)
Figure 35. Graph. Relation between durability factor

and hardened air content of mixes with Vinsol resin
admixture (set 1) or synthetic admixture (set 2).
Factor (%)
Avg. Durability
Figure 36 shows the DF versus fresh air for sets 1 and 2. For set 1, it can be observed that the
marginal air void concretes had similar freeze-thaw resistance, but if no air entrainment is
provided, the freeze-thaw resistance of the concrete is much poorer. For set 2, the higher the
fresh air content (ASTM C 231(14)), the higher the DF.
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Fresh Air content (%)

set 1 (VR AEA)
set 2 (SYN AEA)
Figure 36. Graph. Relation between durability factor and fresh air content
of mixes with Vinsol resin admixture (set 1) or synthetic admixture (set 2).
All specimens suffered some mass change (loss) during testing. The mass loss is a good
indication of the scaling of the specimen (figure 37). Mass losses ranged from 0.32 to 4.03
percent (figure 38). Any mass gain due to water entering the concrete through cracks was
obscured by the losses due to scaling. No correlation was observed between mass loss and the
38
freeze-thaw performance of sets 1 and 2. The mass change versus cycles can be found in
appendix B.
Figure 37. Photo. Scaling of typical specimen. The specimens tended to scale
toward the center region of the beam specimens corresponding
to the area where the metal containers bulged due to ice
formation between the concrete and the container.
Mass change (%)
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
2.5
3.5
4.5
Designed fresh air (%)
Set 1 (VR AEA)
Set 2 (SYN AEA)
Figure 38. Graph. Mass change of mixes with Vinsol resin admixture (set 1)
or synthetic admixture (set 2).
It must be pointed out that set 1 and set 2 differ only in the type of air-entraining admixtureset
1 has Vinsol resin and set 2, synthetic. For the mixes prepared in this study and for the specific
39
admixtures used, the Vinsol resin mixes exhibited better freeze-thaw resistance although they
had a worse air void system.
The reasons for this unexpected observation are not known. It is possible that the water reducer
or the cement used had an influence in the efficiency of the air void system. Another possibility
is that the air-entraining admixture contains nonionic surfactants, which could result in a lack of
a hydrophobic tail oriented towards the interior of the air bubbles, preventing water intrusion
as pressure develops during freezing.(26) A previous study(44) showed that the cement-alkali level
may have a negative impact on the air void system, and as a consequence for the freeze-thaw
performance, on concretes with synthetic air-entraining admixture.
There are well-established thresholds for the air void parameters, which date from the time when
only Vinsol resin admixtures were available. Experience shows that these limits (> 6 1 percent
air, specific surface 24 mm2/mm3, and spacing factor 0.20 mm) would be expected to give
good concrete freeze-thaw resistance. The test data presented in this chapter suggest these limits
may not be adequate to assure durability for some air entrained concrete containing synthetic
admixtures.
There is insufficient data in this study to generalize this finding for all Vinsol resin and synthetic
admixtures and all levels of air content. More research is needed in order to confirm this finding.
40
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS
This study investigated the freeze-thaw resistance of several marginal air void mixes in the
absence of deicing salts. The influence of water-cement ratio and the type of air-entraining
admixture were evaluated.
The project was divided into two phases: 1) the first phase, designed to evaluate the w/c ratio
influence on the freeze-thaw resistance of the mixes containing Vinsol resin air-entraining
admixture; and 2) the second phase, designed to compare the performance of marginal air
content mixes containing either Vinsol resin or synthetic air-entraining admixture.
In phase 1, the mixes had air contents that varied from 2.4 percent to 7.2 percent (measured
according to ASTM C 457(18)) or 3.5 percent to 4.5 percent fresh air content (ASTM C 231(14)).
The spacing factors ranged from 0.23 mm to 1.12 mm. The w/c ratios used were 0.40, 0.45, and
0.50. The mixes with fresh air contents of 3.5 percent or higher, except for mix 116-1, showed
satisfactory freeze-thaw resistance, with DFs above 80 percent and lasting at least 300 cycles. No
trend was observed in terms of the effect of w/c ratio on freeze-thaw resistance for the mixes
investigated.
In phase 2, all mixes were designed to be in the range of marginal air (2.5 percent to 4.5 percent).
Some had spacing factors and specific surface areas higher than the minimum recommended for
a good freeze-thaw resistance. set 1 (with Vinsol resin admixture) showed a better freeze-thaw
performance than set 2 (with synthetic admixture), although in most of the mixes of set 1 the air
void system was much poorer, when measured by ASTM C 457(18) linear traverse, with higher
spacing factors and lower specific surface areas for the same levels of air contents.
In set 1 (VR AEA), all the air-entraining mixes lasted at least 300 cycles and had a DF above 80
percent. The DF did not increase with increasing specific surface, decreasing spacing factor, or
increasing air content, as expected.
In set 2 (SYN AEA), only mix 350 had a DF above 80 percent. In this set, the expected trends
were confirmed, i.e., the higher the spacing factor, the lower the DF; the higher the specific
surface, the lower the DF. Nevertheless, no trend was found for hardened air content and DF.
For the specific materials and mix proportions used in this project, the marginal air mixes
presented an adequate freeze-thaw performance when Vinsol resin based air-entraining
admixture was used. The synthetic admixture used in this study did not show the same good
performance as the Vinsol resin admixture. A different behavior may occur when other Vinsol
and synthetic admixtures are used and higher levels of air entraining are present. The reasons for
this unexpected observation could not be explained.
There are well-established thresholds for the air void parameters that would be expected to give
good concrete freeze-thaw resistance. The test data presented in this study suggest these limits
may not be applicable in all cases to air entrained concrete containing synthetic admixtures.
There is insufficient data in this study to generalize these results for all the Vinsol resin and
synthetic air-entraining admixtures and all levels of air content. More research is needed in order
to confirm this finding.
41
APPENDIX A
Table 19. Coarse aggregate gradations mixes 115118.
Sieve size
1 inch
inch
inch
inch
No. 4
No. 8
Limestone
(% passing)
100.0
92.7
44.1
18.1
3.0
1.1
ASTM C33
95100
2560
010

Sieve size
1-inch
-inch
-inch
-inch
No. 4
Limestone
(% passing)
100.0
92.7
44.1
18.1
3.0
ASTM C33
95100
2560
010

Sieve size
1-inch
-inch
-inch
-inch
No. 4
Limestone
(% passing)
92.4
34.9
9.5
1.5
0.3
ASTM C33
95100
2560
010
Table 22. Fine aggregate gradation mixes 115118.

Sieve size
#4
#8
#16
#30
#50
#100
#200
Percent passing
98.1
80.4
63.4
33.1
10.2
3.4
0.7
43
ASTM C33
95100
80100
5085
2560
530
010

Sieve size
#4
#8
#16
#30
#50
#100
#200
Percent passing
98.1
80.4
63.4
33.1
10.2
3.4
0.7
ASTM C33
95100
80100
5085
2560
530
010

Sieve size
#4
#8
#16
#30
#50
#100
#200
Percent passing
97.8
86.7
72.9
46.3
16.7
4.2
1.4
ASTM C33
95100
80100
5085
2560
530
010
Table 25. Other aggregate properties mixes 115118.

Property
Bulk SG (dry)
Bulk SG (SSD)
Apparent SG
Absorption (%)
Sand
2.48
2.54
2.65
1.4
Limestone
2.71
2.72
2.73
0.4

Property
Bulk SG (dry)
Bulk SG (SSD)
Apparent SG
Absorption (%)
Sand
2.57
2.62
2.66
1.1
44
Limestone
2.72
2.73
2.74
0.4

Property
Bulk SG (dry)
Bulk SG (SSD)
Apparent SG
Absorption (%)
Sand
2.58
2.61
2.67
1.36
Limestone
2.72
2.73
2.74
0.28
Table 28. Cement composition (values in percent

unless otherwise indicated) mixes 115118.
SiO2
Al2O3
Fe2O3
CaO
MgO
SO3
Na2O eq.
Loss on ignition (LOI)
Insoluble residue
20.5
4.9
3.3
62.2
3.5
3.0
0.6
1.5
0.25
Table 29. Additional cement properties mixes 115118.

Potential compounds
C3S (%)
C3A (%)
Fineness, Blaine (m2/kg)

Soundness, autoclave expansion (%)
Time of setting, Vicat (minutes)
Initial
Final
Air content (%)
Compressive strength (MPa)
3 days
7 days
28 days
45
51
7
375
0.120
160
265
7.3
27.0
36.3
48.6
Table 30. Cement composition (values in percent unless

otherwise indicated) mixes 223302.
SiO2
Al2O3
Fe2O3
CaO
MgO
SO3
Na2O eq.
LOI
Insoluble residue
20.5
4.9
3.3
62.2
3.5
3.0
0.60
1.5
0.25
Table 31. Additional cement properties

mixes 223302.
Potential compounds
51
7
375
0.10
C3S (%)
C3A (%)

Initial
Final
Air content (%)
3 days
7 days
28 days
150
270
6.8
23.3
31.0
43.5
Table 32. Cement composition (values in percent unless

otherwise indicated) mixes 346350.
SiO2
Al2O3
Fe2O3
CaO
MgO
SO3
Na2O eq.
LOI
Insoluble residue
20.9
4.4
3.0
62.8
3.5
3.0
0.58
1.1
0.23
46
Table 33. Additional cement properties mixes 346350.

Potential compounds
C3S (%)
C3A (%)

Initial
Final
Air content (%)
3 days
7 days
28 days
47
54
7
366
0.12
160
265
7.3
27.0
36.3
48.6
APPENDIX B
Table 34. Mix 115-1RDM versus cycles.
Cycles
0
19
32
50
69
84
103
132
141
161
174
196
220
253
288
300
A1
100.0
94.8
94.0
93.1
93.1
92.3
91.4
91.4
91.4
90.6
90.6
77.7
91.4
88.1
88.1
88.1
A2
100.0
95.6
91.3
93.0
93.0
91.3
89.6
88.8
88.8
88.8
87.9
86.3
85.5
83.8
82.2
80.6
A3
100.0
94.0
94.8
93.1
92.3
91.4
90.6
89.8
90.6
90.6
89.8
88.9
88.9
87.3
86.5
84.0
A4
100.0
96.5
94.8
93.0
92.2
91.3
89.7
89.7
89.7
88.8
88.8
88.0
88.0
87.2
84.7
83.9
Mean
100.0
95.2
93.7
93.1
92.6
91.6
90.3
89.9
90.1
89.7
89.3
85.2
88.4
86.6
85.4
84.2
Std dev
0.00
1.09
1.65
0.05
0.48
0.45
0.86
1.10
1.14
1.03
1.14
5.13
2.46
1.89
2.52
3.07

Cycles
0
19
32
50
69
84
103
132
141
161
174
196
220
253
288
300
A1
100.0
94.8
94.0
92.3
91.4
90.6
90.6
89.8
90.6
88.9
88.1
88.1
88.1
84.0
81.6
80.1
A2
100.0
94.8
93.1
92.3
91.4
91.4
90.6
88.9
89.8
88.9
87.3
87.3
87.3
83.2
79.3
75.4
A3
100.0
94.0
94.0
92.3
92.3
92.3
92.3
92.3
93.1
92.3
92.3
91.4
91.4
89.8
86.5
84.0
49
A4
100.0
94.0
97.4
93.1
93.1
91.5
91.5
90.6
92.3
89.8
89.0
87.3
87.3
85.7
81.7
81.7
Mean
100.0
94.4
94.6
92.5
92.1
91.4
91.2
90.4
91.4
90.0
89.2
88.5
88.5
85.7
82.3
80.3
Std dev
0.00
0.48
1.91
0.44
0.82
0.69
0.81
1.43
1.54
1.58
2.19
1.96
1.96
2.91
3.01
3.64

Cycles
0
19
32
50
69
84
103
132
141
161
174
196
220
253
288
300
A1
100.0
94.9
95.7
94.9
93.2
92.4
92.4
91.6
91.6
89.9
89.1
89.1
89.1
88.3
85.9
85.1
A2
100.0
94.9
94.1
93.3
92.4
91.6
91.6
90.8
90.8
89.2
88.3
86.7
86.7
84.4
82.0
81.2
A3
100.0
94.9
94.1
93.3
92.4
92.4
92.4
91.6
91.6
89.2
90.0
90.0
90.0
80.5
87.5
87.5
A4
100.0
94.9
94.9
94.0
94.0
94.0
94.0
93.2
93.2
91.5
92.3
91.5
88.2
90.7
89.8
89.0
Mean
100.0
94.9
94.7
93.9
93.0
92.6
92.6
91.8
91.8
89.9
89.9
89.3
88.5
85.9
86.3
85.7
Std dev
0.00
0.03
0.79
0.78
0.76
1.01
1.01
1.00
1.00
1.10
1.73
1.99
1.38
4.49
3.30
3.40

Cycles
0
18
37
50
84
103
A1
100.0
87.4
84.2
94.9
63.4
48.0
A2
100.0
89.1
88.3
82.7
69.9
55.6
A3
100.0
89.8
84.2
77.1
63.3
55.9
A4
100.0
87.5
80.4
70.6
56.3
46.4
Mean
100.0
88.5
84.3
81.3
63.2
51.5
Std dev
0.00
1.20
3.23
10.28
5.59
5.00

Cycles
0
18
37
50
84
103
112
A1
100.0
90.1
87.7
85.4
80.0
70.5
65.6
A2
100.0
91.8
90.2
85.4
75.6
61.1
52.2
A3
100.0
92.5
89.3
85.3
75.5
61.4
56.3
50
A4
100.0
92.5
89.3
86.1
80.7
72.5
69.0
Mean
100.0
91.7
89.1
85.6
78.0
66.4
60.8
Std dev
0.00
1.13
1.01
0.37
2.79
5.98
7.84

Cycles
0
18
37
50
84
103
112
132
145
167
191
224
A1
100.0
89.0
85.8
85.0
84.2
82.6
77.1
74.9
71.1
64.7
52.7
A2
100.0
89.9
88.2
87.4
85.8
83.4
76.5
79.5
76.5
71.3
62.1
43.9
A3
100.0
90.6
88.9
87.3
84.8
80.1
84.8
74.7
69.4
59.6
51.1
A4
100.0
92.3
90.7
89.0
85.8
83.4
86.6
79.4
76.4
70.4
64.7
46.6
Mean
100.0
90.5
88.4
87.2
85.1
82.4
81.3
77.1
73.4
66.5
57.7
45.2
Std dev
0.00
1.41
2.03
1.67
0.80
1.58
5.20
2.73
3.60
5.45
6.74
1.93

Cycles
0
19
38
47
67
80
93
102
126
135
159
194
220
255
274
303
A1
100.0
94.6
93.7
92.9
94.6
94.6
94.6
93.7
94.6
93.7
93.7
92.9
92.0
91.1
92.0
91.1
A2
100.0
103.8
101.9
103.8
101.0
100.0
101.9
100.0
101.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.0
97.2
96.2
95.3
A3
100.0
94.6
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
93.8
92.9
92.0
92.0
90.3
90.3
A4
100.0
94.6
93.7
93.7
92.9
93.7
93.7
92.9
93.7
92.9
91.1
90.3
88.5
87.7
85.1
81.8
Mean
100.0
96.9
95.8
96.1
95.5
95.5
96.0
95.1
95.8
95.1
94.7
94.0
92.9
92.0
90.9
89.6
Std dev
0.00
4.61
4.08
5.21
3.67
3.01
3.96
3.30
3.48
3.30
3.77
4.19
4.42
3.92
4.59
5.65

Cycles
0
19
38
A1
100.0
63.9
34.2
A2
100.0
55.6
24.6
A3
100.0
64.4
26.6
51
A4
100.0
50.7
20.1
Mean
100.0
58.6
26.4
Std dev
0.00
6.68
5.88

Cycles
0
19
38
47
67
80
93
102
126
135
159
194
220
255
274
303
A1
100.0
94.6
93.8
93.8
94.6
93.8
94.6
93.8
93.8
92.9
92.0
92.0
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.2
A2
100.0
95.6
94.7
94.7
94.7
93.8
94.7
93.8
93.8
93.0
92.1
93.0
91.3
91.3
91.3
91.3
A3
100.0
94.7
93.9
93.9
93.0
93.0
93.0
91.3
92.2
91.3
90.5
90.5
89.6
88.8
87.9
87.1
A4
100.0
95.6
94.7
95.6
95.6
94.7
95.6
94.7
79.0
95.6
94.7
95.6
94.7
94.7
93.9
93.9
Mean
100.0
95.1
94.3
94.5
94.5
93.8
94.5
93.4
89.7
93.2
92.3
92.8
91.7
91.5
91.1
90.9
Std dev
0.00
0.52
0.53
0.86
1.08
0.71
1.08
1.47
7.16
1.78
1.77
2.16
2.16
2.45
2.43
2.79

Cycles
0
19
38
47
67
80
93
102
126
135
159
194
220
255
274
303
A1
100.0
95.6
94.8
95.6
94.8
94.8
94.8
93.9
94.8
93.9
93.9
93.9
93.0
92.2
91.3
90.5
A2
100.0
96.5
95.6
95.6
95.6
95.6
95.6
95.6
94.7
95.6
94.7
95.6
94.7
93.0
93.0
91.3
A3
100.0
96.5
96.5
96.5
95.6
95.6
95.6
94.7
94.7
93.8
93.0
92.1
90.4
93.0
87.9
85.4
52
A4
100.0
96.5
96.5
96.5
96.5
96.5
97.4
97.4
98.2
97.4
96.5
96.5
95.6
95.6
94.8
93.9
Mean
100.0
96.3
95.8
96.0
95.6
95.6
95.8
95.4
95.6
95.2
94.5
94.5
93.5
93.5
91.8
90.3
Std dev
0.00
0.43
0.83
0.51
0.71
0.71
1.10
1.49
1.76
1.67
1.50
1.93
2.29
1.51
2.93
3.57

Cycles
0
9
29
42
55
64
88
97
121
160
192
217
236
265
300
A1
100.0
95.4
95.4
95.4
96.3
95.4
96.3
94.5
95.4
95.4
94.5
94.5
93.7
93.7
92.8
A2
100.0
97.3
97.3
97.3
97.3
97.3
98.2
97.3
97.3
97.3
96.4
96.4
96.4
95.5
95.5
A3
100.0
96.4
96.4
96.4
97.3
96.4
97.3
97.3
97.3
97.3
97.3
97.3
97.3
97.3
96.4
A4
100.0
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
95.5
96.4
96.4
95.5
95.5
94.6
Mean
100.0
96.1
96.1
96.1
96.6
96.1
96.8
96.1
96.4
96.4
96.1
96.1
95.7
95.5
94.8
Std dev
0.00
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.86
0.87
1.17
1.36
1.05
1.05
1.14
1.14
1.54
1.48
1.54

Cycles
0
9
29
42
55
64
88
97
121
160
192
217
236
265
300
A1
100.0
95.7
95.7
95.7
96.6
95.7
95.7
95.7
94.9
94.9
94.0
94.0
93.2
92.3
91.5
A2
100.0
96.5
95.7
96.5
96.5
96.5
96.5
96.5
95.7
95.7
95.7
96.5
95.7
95.7
94.8
A3
100.0
96.5
95.7
96.5
96.5
95.7
96.5
95.7
93.1
94.8
94.8
94.0
94.0
93.1
92.3
53
A4
100.0
96.5
95.7
95.7
96.5
96.5
96.5
95.7
93.1
94.8
94.0
94.0
94.0
93.1
92.3
Mean
100.0
96.3
95.7
96.1
96.5
96.1
96.3
95.9
94.2
95.0
94.6
94.6
94.2
93.6
92.7
Std dev
0.00
0.41
0.02
0.49
0.01
0.49
0.41
0.43
1.29
0.43
0.81
1.28
1.06
1.46
1.46

Cycles
0
9
29
42
55
64
88
97
121
160
192
217
236
265
300
A1
100.0
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
94.2
95.8
95.8
96.7
95.8
95.0
95.0
94.2
93.4
92.6
A2
100.0
95.0
95.8
95.8
95.8
95.8
96.7
96.7
96.7
97.5
96.7
97.5
97.5
96.7
96.7
A3
100.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
95.0
94.2
94.2
94.2
92.6
92.6
91.8
91.0
90.2
89.4
89.4
A4
100.0
95.8
95.0
94.1
94.1
94.1
95.0
95.0
95.0
92.5
92.5
93.3
92.5
92.5
90.9
Mean
100.0
95.4
95.4
95.2
95.2
94.6
95.4
95.4
95.2
94.6
94.0
94.2
93.6
93.0
92.4
Std dev
0.00
0.47
0.49
0.81
0.81
0.82
1.06
1.06
1.93
2.48
2.26
2.75
3.08
2.99
3.14
Table 47. Mix 223RDM versus cycles.

Cycles
0
9
23
32
42
59
70
84
98
112
121
146
165
179
198
213
227
246
269
282
301
A1
100.0
96.7
96.3
95.9
95.9
94.2
95.1
95.2
95.3
95.5
95.7
95.4
94.6
94.6
93.5
92.7
92.0
91.6
90.7
90.3
89.6
A2
100.0
94.1
95.9
95.2
94.9
93.0
93.8
94.5
94.3
94.3
94.3
94.2
93.8
93.5
93.0
91.7
90.8
90.3
89.3
88.6
88.5
A3
100.0
97.7
96.8
96.8
96.6
94.8
95.6
96.1
95.8
95.8
96.0
95.6
94.8
95.2
94.2
92.7
91.6
91.6
90.6
90.0
89.7
A4
100.0
96.3
95.9
95.0
94.7
91.7
92.5
92.9
92.6
92.5
92.5
92.2
92.0
91.7
90.0
88.7
88.1
87.7
86.2
85.2
84.4
54
A5
100.0
97.5
96.6
95.9
95.8
95.4
95.3
95.7
95.6
95.6
95.7
95.9
95.2
95.6
94.5
93.3
92.9
92.8
92.6
92.3
92.0
Mean
100.0
96.5
96.3
95.8
95.6
93.8
94.5
94.9
94.7
94.7
94.8
94.7
94.1
94.1
93.0
91.8
91.1
90.8
89.9
89.3
88.9
Std dev
0.00
1.45
0.39
0.71
0.79
1.51
1.30
1.27
1.31
1.41
1.47
1.51
1.27
1.53
1.82
1.86
1.85
1.96
2.38
2.61
2.79

Cycles
0
9
23
32
42
59
70
84
98
112
121
146
165
179
198
213
227
246
269
282
301
A1
100.0
96.2
96.1
95.8
95.7
95.7
95.1
95.1
95.1
95.1
95.1
94.5
94.4
92.6
93.0
91.8
90.3
89.5
87.7
86.6
85.7
A2
100.0
96.8
96.4
96.4
95.6
94.9
94.5
94.6
94.6
94.0
93.7
92.9
93.2
92.8
91.9
90.8
89.5
89.1
87.7
87.3
87.2
A3
100.0
97.2
96.8
95.9
95.6
95.1
94.2
94.6
93.9
93.9
94.0
93.2
92.9
92.4
91.5
90.8
89.4
88.8
86.9
86.5
85.4
A4
100.0
97.6
96.6
96.0
95.6
94.4
94.4
93.9
93.2
93.1
92.7
91.6
90.6
90.1
88.5
88.0
86.9
86.6
86.2
85.3
84.4
55
A5
100.0
96.8
96.8
95.9
95.8
95.5
94.8
95.0
94.4
94.5
94.0
94.1
Mean
100.0
97.0
96.5
96.0
95.6
95.0
94.5
94.6
94.2
94.0
93.9
93.0
92.8
92.0
91.2
90.4
89.0
88.5
87.1
86.4
85.7
Std dev
0.00
0.57
0.30
0.25
0.06
0.53
0.37
0.52
0.82
0.84
1.01
1.20
1.57
1.28
1.91
1.62
1.50
1.30
0.76
0.86
1.18

Cycles
0
6
20
26
35
49
58
83
102
116
135
150
164
183
206
219
238
252
271
286
305
A1
100.0
97.2
96.2
97.5
96.9
96.9
97.0
96.8
96.4
96.3
95.1
95.0
94.1
94.1
93.4
92.8
92.3
92.0
90.9
90.5
89.4
A2
100.0
97.8
98.1
98.7
97.9
98.1
97.9
97.9
97.4
97.6
96.8
96.5
95.6
95.7
94.6
94.2
93.6
92.9
91.9
92.1
90.5
A3
100.0
97.3
97.9
97.8
97.0
97.0
96.7
96.1
95.8
95.8
94.7
94.6
93.6
93.1
92.1
91.8
91.9
91.4
91.1
90.8
90.0
A4
100.0
97.5
97.4
97.5
96.8
97.3
97.5
97.6
97.1
97.3
96.5
95.5
95.4
94.9
94.1
93.7
92.9
92.4
92.0
91.5
90.8
56
A5
100.0
97.3
97.4
97.5
96.8
96.9
96.8
96.6
96.1
96.0
95.3
94.0
93.7
93.1
92.5
91.7
90.9
90.2
90.1
90.3
88.2
Mean
100.0
97.4
97.4
97.8
97.1
97.2
97.2
97.0
96.5
96.6
95.7
95.1
94.5
94.2
93.3
92.8
92.3
91.8
91.2
91.0
89.8
Std dev
0.00
0.24
0.73
0.52
0.47
0.50
0.49
0.72
0.68
0.81
0.93
0.92
0.98
1.13
1.06
1.09
1.01
1.04
0.80
0.76
1.05

Cycles
0
6
15
29
38
63
82
96
115
130
144
163
186
199
218
232
251
266
285
304
A1
100.0
94.9
94.2
94.5
94.9
94.9
94.7
95.1
94.2
93.3
93.2
93.5
93.4
93.5
93.4
93.0
93.3
92.9
92.9
92.1
A2
100.0
97.0
96.3
96.8
96.7
97.0
97.1
97.3
96.4
95.5
95.4
95.9
96.0
95.8
95.8
95.3
95.6
95.5
95.0
94.0
A3
100.0
96.2
97.1
97.0
96.8
97.0
96.6
96.6
95.9
95.4
94.9
95.5
94.8
94.4
94.5
94.1
94.1
93.7
93.4
93.0
A4
100.0
97.3
96.8
96.8
97.0
97.2
97.1
97.2
96.8
96.3
95.9
96.0
95.8
95.6
95.7
95.6
95.4
95.2
95.0
95.0
57
A5
100.0
97.1
96.7
97.1
97.1
97.3
97.3
97.4
96.8
96.5
96.2
96.2
96.3
96.1
96.2
95.7
96.0
95.7
95.8
95.3
Mean
100.0
96.5
96.2
96.4
96.5
96.7
96.5
96.7
96.0
95.4
95.1
95.4
95.3
95.1
95.1
94.8
94.9
94.6
94.4
93.9
Std dev
0.00
1.01
1.18
1.09
0.92
1.02
1.07
0.96
1.08
1.26
1.17
1.09
1.19
1.09
1.15
1.19
1.13
1.23
1.23
1.36

Cycles
0
6
15
29
38
63
82
96
115
130
144
163
186
199
218
232
251
266
285
304
A1
100.00
97.04
96.61
96.44
96.35
96.31
96.18
96.10
95.25
94.45
93.49
93.28
92.19
91.78
90.99
90.66
89.92
89.27
88.90
86.67
A2
100.00
96.44
96.06
96.52
95.81
96.02
95.60
95.56
94.93
94.27
93.44
93.15
92.70
92.41
92.12
91.38
91.30
90.85
90.32
88.06
A3
100.00
96.84
96.33
96.16
95.91
96.16
96.04
95.91
95.03
94.40
93.56
93.48
92.94
92.40
91.49
90.92
90.79
89.49
88.07
86.82
A4
100.00
97.56
96.59
96.93
96.42
96.84
96.50
96.50
95.70
94.99
94.28
94.36
93.40
92.90
92.49
91.87
91.83
91.17
90.65
89.86
A5
100.00
96.41
95.98
95.90
95.10
95.90
96.02
96.15
95.18
94.47
94.17
93.71
93.42
93.04
92.92
68.91
74.61
70.85
80.66
76.75
Mean
100.0
96.9
96.3
96.4
95.9
96.2
96.1
96.0
95.2
94.5
93.8
93.6
92.9
92.5
92.0
86.7
87.7
86.3
87.7
85.6
Std dev
0.00
0.48
0.29
0.39
0.53
0.37
0.33
0.35
0.30
0.28
0.40
0.48
0.51
0.50
0.77
9.98
7.35
8.69
4.08
5.13
Mean
100.0
92.5
85.2
81.5
79.4
76.2
68.7
65.2
53.2
Std dev
0.00
1.74
3.92
4.76
6.65
6.35
7.11
4.99
3.73

Cycles
0
10
24
31
44
52
62
72
86
A1
100.0
92.6
82.0
79.0
79.3
71.1
66.0
61.2
50.3
A2
100.0
90.2
83.9
79.7
73.4
74.9
67.9
61.6
50.5
A3
100.0
95.1
90.8
87.1
87.6
83.9
76.4
71.9
58.2
A4
100.0
92.4
81.6
75.9
72.3
69.5
58.6
58
A5
100.0
92.2
87.6
85.7
84.2
81.7
74.6
66.0
53.7

Cycles
0
9
22
31
43
53
69
83
92
101
119
133
150
165
179
194
204
216
230
248
266
287
305
311
329
A1
100.0
94.3
94.1
93.9
93.0
92.5
90.9
90.1
90.6
89.6
87.9
87.6
86.8
85.2
83.6
83.0
81.5
80.0
76.1
74.9
70.1
69.0
66.2
61.8
58.9
A2
100.0
95.2
94.0
93.2
91.2
91.6
90.3
89.8
87.9
87.7
86.8
83.7
83.3
83.2
81.4
81.2
76.8
78.7
73.5
71.9
67.2
62.2
46.0
A3
100.0
94.7
94.0
93.5
93.4
92.9
91.7
90.4
90.1
89.5
87.8
87.5
85.3
84.0
81.6
79.2
77.0
77.8
71.2
70.3
66.1
62.5
56.9
59
A4
100.0
94.9
93.7
93.9
93.8
93.5
93.3
92.2
91.6
90.7
88.8
86.8
86.8
86.1
85.4
83.1
81.6
82.7
77.2
76.1
69.9
66.3
53.4
Mean
100.0
94.8
94.0
93.6
92.9
92.6
91.5
90.6
90.1
89.4
87.8
86.4
85.6
84.6
83.0
81.6
79.2
79.8
74.5
73.3
68.3
65.0
55.6
61.8
58.9
Std dev
0.00
0.38
0.17
0.34
1.15
0.82
1.32
1.10
1.54
1.22
0.82
1.84
1.64
1.26
1.90
1.81
2.71
2.15
2.70
2.69
1.99
3.24
8.38

Cycles
0
17
26
38
48
64
78
87
96
114
128
145
160
174
189
199
211
225
243
261
282
300
306
324
337
355
369
384
403
412
437
A1
100.0
95.1
94.9
94.8
94.4
94.3
92.4
93.2
93.0
92.4
91.8
91.9
91.1
90.2
89.5
87.7
87.4
83.6
81.0
78.0
75.6
68.0
67.5
62.8
59.4
A2
100.0
95.4
95.2
94.7
94.7
94.7
94.1
92.9
92.9
92.9
91.9
91.0
91.0
89.9
89.4
88.5
88.1
86.9
84.1
83.8
82.1
78.3
78.2
73.9
71.0
66.6
66.9
64.5
58.7
A3
100.0
94.9
94.9
94.6
94.3
93.7
92.6
92.7
91.9
93.1
90.0
90.0
89.4
88.8
87.4
86.4
88.3
84.3
83.7
82.6
80.6
77.1
77.7
75.2
70.8
70.6
65.6
65.8
61.6
60.2
48.2
60
A4
100.0
94.7
94.5
94.0
94.3
92.7
93.1
88.9
92.2
91.9
91.0
90.0
88.7
88.5
88.1
87.2
86.5
85.3
84.0
82.9
81.6
78.8
78.3
77.0
76.1
50.4
Mean
100.0
95.0
94.9
94.5
94.4
93.9
93.1
91.9
92.5
92.6
91.2
90.7
90.1
89.4
88.6
87.5
87.6
85.0
83.2
81.8
80.0
75.6
75.4
72.2
69.3
62.5
66.3
65.2
60.2
60.2
48.2
Std dev
0.00
0.30
0.29
0.36
0.19
0.87
0.76
2.03
0.54
0.54
0.88
0.91
1.19
0.83
1.02
0.88
0.81
1.43
1.48
2.60
2.98
5.08
5.29
6.41
7.06
10.70
0.92
0.92
2.05

Cycles
0
11
25
34
43
61
75
92
107
121
136
146
158
172
190
208
A1
100.0
94.7
94.6
94.3
94.3
94.0
93.1
91.8
88.8
86.1
82.0
77.7
76.1
67.7
62.2
55.3
A2
100.0
95.3
94.5
94.2
92.4
87.1
82.8
78.1
72.6
55.1
A3
100.0
94.7
92.6
93.1
93.1
90.4
87.3
82.6
80.8
78.6
70.9
65.1
59.3
51.3
61
A4
100.0
96.0
95.4
93.9
93.3
90.8
90.8
88.9
86.3
80.5
63.2
51.1
Mean
100.0
95.2
94.3
93.9
93.3
90.6
88.5
85.4
82.1
75.1
72.0
64.7
67.7
59.5
62.2
55.3
Std dev
0.00
0.64
1.20
0.56
0.79
2.82
4.48
6.17
7.19
13.69
9.45
13.29
11.91
11.61

Cycles
0
11
25
34
43
61
75
92
107
121
136
146
158
172
190
208
229
247
253
271
284
302
316
331
350
359
384
393
403
A1
100.0
96.2
96.1
96.0
95.7
95.9
95.8
95.3
95.0
94.8
93.5
92.3
91.6
86.2
85.1
85.4
85.7
85.2
85.8
85.3
84.5
82.4
83.4
82.2
80.1
79.9
72.4
67.3
66.0
A2
100.0
95.1
94.1
95.0
94.3
94.1
94.3
93.6
92.9
92.3
91.5
89.7
90.2
89.1
83.8
79.4
75.5
68.3
66.2
63.9
63.8
62.5
62.4
64.4
63.4
62.6
60.7
53.8
A3
100.0
95.8
95.6
95.9
95.3
95.7
95.5
95.0
94.5
92.1
90.6
88.9
88.3
86.5
83.0
76.3
71.7
63.5
60.0
62
A4
100.0
96.3
100.0
95.9
95.1
95.7
95.0
93.7
93.8
92.7
91.4
90.4
90.2
89.0
89.4
84.5
80.4
76.5
73.8
71.9
66.7
66.9
66.9
60.9
59.7
59.4
Mean
100.0
95.8
96.5
95.7
95.1
95.4
95.1
94.4
94.1
93.0
91.7
90.3
90.1
87.7
85.3
81.4
78.3
73.4
71.5
73.7
71.7
70.6
70.9
69.2
67.7
67.3
66.6
60.6
66.0
Std dev
0.00
0.55
2.48
0.45
0.57
0.83
0.64
0.87
0.92
1.24
1.21
1.45
1.34
1.58
2.83
4.35
6.07
9.56
11.14
10.79
11.22
10.44
11.04
11.39
10.84
11.02
8.24
9.54

Cycles
0
18
27
36
54
68
85
100
114
129
139
151
165
183
201
222
240
246
264
277
295
309
324
343
352
377
386
396
A1
100.0
97.0
97.3
96.4
96.2
96.6
96.6
96.4
95.0
93.7
92.5
91.8
87.6
85.6
85.0
84.2
83.4
83.6
81.3
81.0
77.7
76.6
75.4
72.7
71.7
60.3
52.0
A2
100.0
95.4
96.0
95.6
96.6
96.1
96.4
96.0
95.3
95.2
93.7
93.6
92.5
91.9
91.3
90.6
89.3
89.0
87.5
86.5
83.8
86.2
85.9
85.2
82.8
79.9
77.5
76.2
A3
100.0
96.3
96.6
96.0
96.2
94.9
94.2
92.2
91.6
90.5
89.4
89.6
87.5
86.1
86.9
86.5
85.2
85.6
85.5
84.3
83.0
83.1
82.6
80.9
80.8
75.9
73.1
72.6
63
A4
100.0
96.1
96.3
95.9
95.3
94.3
94.1
93.7
93.4
92.9
92.0
92.1
90.8
90.0
90.6
89.4
87.6
87.3
85.9
84.5
84.4
83.5
81.5
81.4
81.1
77.3
77.4
77.3
Mean
100.0
96.2
96.6
96.0
96.1
95.5
95.3
94.6
93.8
93.1
91.9
91.8
89.6
88.4
88.5
87.7
86.4
86.4
85.0
84.1
82.2
82.3
81.3
80.0
79.1
73.4
70.0
75.4
Std dev
0.00
0.62
0.54
0.36
0.54
1.06
1.38
1.97
1.73
1.99
1.78
1.65
2.49
3.06
2.99
2.89
2.62
2.31
2.64
2.28
3.08
4.07
4.37
5.27
5.01
8.87
12.15
2.45
Table 58. Mix 115-1Mass change versus cycles.

Cycles
0
19
32
50
69
84
103
132
141
161
174
196
220
253
288
300
A1
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.17
0.26
0.36
0.47
0.57
0.79
1.03
1.21
1.49
1.86
1.49
2.53
2.68
A2
0.00
0.34
0.44
0.65
0.84
0.98
1.25
1.47
1.55
1.90
2.19
2.58
3.12
2.58
4.02
4.22
A3
0.00
0.04
0.11
0.27
0.40
0.52
0.66
0.91
0.97
1.33
1.55
2.08
2.56
2.08
3.69
3.87
A4
0.00
0.06
0.13
0.27
0.46
0.64
0.77
1.06
1.12
1.52
1.80
2.26
2.83
2.26
3.71
3.87
Mean
0.00
0.11
0.18
0.34
0.49
0.62
0.79
1.00
1.11
1.44
1.69
2.10
2.59
2.10
3.49
3.66
Std dev
0.00
0.16
0.17
0.21
0.25
0.27
0.33
0.37
0.33
0.37
0.41
0.46
0.54
0.46
0.65
0.67

Cycles
0
19
32
50
69
84
103
132
141
161
174
196
220
253
288
300
A1
0.00
0.11
0.16
0.30
0.44
0.52
0.63
0.84
0.91
1.17
1.31
1.86
2.19
2.75
3.33
3.51
A2
0.00
0.13
0.17
0.33
0.41
0.44
0.42
0.69
0.74
0.95
1.12
1.39
1.82
2.18
2.61
2.82
A3
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.12
0.19
0.16
0.26
0.55
0.73
1.12
1.37
1.74
2.16
2.43
2.82
3.04
64
A4
0.00
0.10
0.18
0.25
0.32
0.44
0.54
0.78
0.84
1.27
1.55
1.98
2.44
2.94
3.50
3.74
Mean
0.00
0.09
0.14
0.25
0.34
0.39
0.46
0.72
0.80
1.13
1.34
1.74
2.15
2.57
3.07
3.28
Std dev
0.00
0.04
0.05
0.09
0.11
0.16
0.16
0.13
0.08
0.13
0.18
0.25
0.25
0.34
0.42
0.42

Cycles
0
19
32
50
69
84
103
132
141
161
174
196
220
253
288
300
A1
0.00
0.08
0.10
0.14
0.25
0.27
0.34
0.50
0.70
0.96
1.26
1.71
2.34
2.74
3.09
3.19
A2
0.00
0.15
0.28
0.36
0.01
0.40
0.45
0.36
0.60
0.78
0.87
1.08
1.29
1.95
2.45
2.64
A3
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.10
0.16
0.19
0.20
0.37
0.38
0.60
0.74
1.01
1.29
1.61
1.95
2.11
A4
0.00
0.20
0.26
0.37
0.46
0.51
0.55
0.74
0.80
0.97
1.18
1.40
1.69
1.99
2.44
2.59
Mean
0.00
0.11
0.17
0.24
0.21
0.34
0.38
0.49
0.62
0.83
1.01
1.30
1.65
2.07
2.48
2.63
Std dev
0.00
0.08
0.12
0.14
0.20
0.14
0.15
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.25
0.32
0.49
0.48
0.47
0.44

Cycles
0
18
37
50
84
103
A1
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.15
0.30
0.72
A2
0.00
0.06
0.04
0.14
0.15
0.52
A3
0.00
0.01
0.08
0.17
0.20
0.65
A4
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.06
0.16
0.76
Mean
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.13
0.20
0.66
Std dev
0.00
0.04
0.03
0.05
0.07
0.11

Cycles
0
18
37
50
84
103
112
A1
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.36
0.34
0.49
0.51
A2
0.00
0.02
0.08
0.11
0.17
0.47
0.53
A3
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.03
65
A4
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.08
0.12
Mean
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.12
0.11
0.26
0.30
Std dev
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.17
0.18
0.25
0.26

Cycles
0
18
37
50
84
103
112
132
145
167
191
224
A1
0.00
0.01
0.10
0.21
0.33
0.56
0.70
1.19
1.61
2.26
2.95
A2
0.00
0.02
0.12
0.20
0.33
0.55
0.65
1.00
1.42
2.11
2.94
4.06
A3
0.00
0.05
0.14
0.25
0.28
0.53
0.62
1.07
1.44
2.12
2.75
A4
0.00
0.02
0.07
0.28
0.06
0.23
0.30
0.55
0.81
1.33
1.76
2.80
Mean
0.00
0.02
0.11
0.11
0.25
0.47
0.57
0.96
1.32
1.95
2.60
3.43
Std dev
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.24
0.13
0.16
0.18
0.28
0.35
0.42
0.57
0.89

Cycles
0
19
38
47
67
80
93
102
126
135
159
194
220
255
274
303
A1
0.00
0.02
0.11
0.20
0.32
0.44
0.53
0.61
0.90
0.97
1.23
1.53
1.93
2.15
2.35
2.51
A2
0.00
0.01
0.23
0.33
0.63
0.95
1.28
1.46
2.16
2.30
2.68
3.08
3.51
3.78
4.17
4.36
A3
0.00
0.01
0.15
0.20
0.35
0.50
0.69
0.88
1.18
1.28
1.48
1.93
2.28
2.57
2.80
2.94
A4
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.23
0.49
0.79
1.12
1.36
1.74
1.88
2.23
2.75
3.25
3.71
3.99
4.33
Mean
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.24
0.45
0.67
0.90
1.08
1.50
1.61
1.91
2.32
2.74
3.05
3.33
3.53
Std dev
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.14
0.24
0.35
0.40
0.56
0.59
0.67
0.72
0.76
0.82
0.89
0.95

Cycles
0
19
38
A1
0.00
0.24
0.18
A2
0.00
0.23
0.02
A3
0.00
0.23
0.11
66
A4
0.00
0.31
0.21
Mean
0.00
0.25
0.13
Std dev
0.00
0.04
0.08

Cycles
0
19
38
47
67
80
93
102
126
135
159
194
220
255
274
303
A1
0.00
0.04
0.20
0.29
0.45
0.64
0.83
0.94
1.45
1.56
1.77
2.21
2.58
2.75
3.19
3.39
A2
0.00
0.02
0.19
0.24
0.44
0.69
0.92
0.99
1.52
1.60
1.92
2.35
2.78
3.00
3.30
3.52
A3
0.00
0.01
0.08
0.16
0.34
0.55
0.72
0.90
1.38
1.44
1.75
2.35
2.68
3.03
3.24
3.64
A4
0.00
0.02
0.18
0.20
0.33
0.51
0.70
0.82
1.11
1.14
1.47
1.89
2.21
2.60
2.75
3.02
Mean
0.00
0.02
0.16
0.22
0.39
0.60
0.79
0.91
1.36
1.44
1.73
2.20
2.56
2.85
3.12
3.39
Std dev
0.00
0.02
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.18
0.21
0.19
0.21
0.25
0.21
0.25
0.27

Cycles
0
19
38
47
67
80
93
102
126
135
159
194
220
255
274
303
A1
0.00
0.04
0.23
0.27
0.39
0.67
0.79
0.85
1.15
1.18
1.45
1.67
1.94
2.23
2.28
2.67
A2
0.00
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.11
0.16
0.18
0.22
0.38
0.61
0.71
0.86
1.02
A3
0.00
0.04
0.07
0.08
0.17
0.30
0.36
0.39
0.70
0.73
1.04
1.36
1.81
2.13
2.34
2.63
67
A4
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.07
0.03
0.00
0.18
0.21
0.28
0.44
0.66
0.84
0.87
1.20
Mean
0.00
0.04
0.10
0.12
0.17
0.28
0.32
0.33
0.55
0.57
0.75
0.96
1.25
1.48
1.59
1.88
Std dev
0.00
0.01
0.09
0.10
0.16
0.28
0.34
0.38
0.47
0.48
0.60
0.65
0.72
0.81
0.83
0.89

Cycles
0
19
38
47
67
80
93
102
126
135
159
194
220
255
274
303
A1
0.00
0.04
0.23
0.27
0.39
0.67
0.79
0.85
1.15
1.18
1.45
1.67
1.94
2.23
2.28
2.67
A2
0.00
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.11
0.16
0.18
0.22
0.38
0.61
0.71
0.86
1.02
A3
0.00
0.04
0.07
0.08
0.17
0.30
0.36
0.39
0.70
0.73
1.04
1.36
1.81
2.13
2.34
2.63
A4
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.07
0.05
0.07
0.03
0.00
0.18
0.21
0.28
0.44
0.66
0.84
0.87
1.20
Mean
0.00
0.04
0.10
0.12
0.17
0.28
0.32
0.33
0.55
0.57
0.75
0.96
1.25
1.48
1.59
1.88
Std dev
0.00
0.01
0.09
0.10
0.16
0.28
0.34
0.38
0.47
0.48
0.60
0.65
0.72
0.81
0.83
0.89

Cycles
0
9
29
42
55
64
88
97
121
160
192
217
236
265
300
A1
0.00
0.02
0.06
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.15
0.17
0.29
0.42
0.61
0.64
0.80
0.97
1.20
A2
0.00
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.04
0.17
0.18
0.26
0.37
0.54
0.54
0.65
0.73
0.92
A3
0.00
0.06
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.27
0.29
0.52
0.63
0.82
0.86
0.96
1.07
1.27
68
A4
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.20
0.24
0.38
0.52
0.72
0.81
0.97
1.05
1.34
Mean
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.20
0.22
0.36
0.49
0.68
0.71
0.84
0.95
1.18
Std dev
0.00
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.06
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.19

Cycles
0
9
29
42
55
64
88
97
121
160
192
217
236
265
300
A1
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.07
0.00
0.19
0.88
0.37
0.57
0.72
0.80
0.89
1.05
1.24
A2
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.08
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.08
0.12
0.11
0.16
0.17
0.21
A3
0.00
0.03
0.13
0.17
0.22
0.13
0.32
0.25
0.42
0.50
0.69
0.76
0.87
0.91
1.14
A4
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.20
0.12
0.25
0.21
0.34
0.44
0.67
0.72
0.83
0.84
1.08
Mean
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.03
0.13
0.04
0.20
0.34
0.29
0.40
0.55
0.60
0.69
0.75
0.92
Std dev
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.12
0.38
0.19
0.22
0.29
0.33
0.35
0.39
0.47
Table 71. Mix 223Mass change versus cycles.

Cycles
0
9
23
32
42
59
70
84
98
112
121
146
165
179
198
213
227
246
269
282
301
A1
0.00
0.01
0.11
0.14
0.25
0.43
0.46
0.56
0.71
0.75
0.80
0.96
1.06
1.20
1.31
1.43
1.58
1.79
1.98
2.05
2.26
A2
0.00
0.01
0.09
0.15
0.24
0.41
0.48
0.57
0.75
0.76
0.85
1.05
1.27
1.36
1.57
1.68
1.89
2.08
2.33
2.31
2.66
A3
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.13
0.21
0.41
0.46
0.58
0.77
0.80
0.94
1.11
1.30
1.41
1.56
1.63
1.76
1.90
2.21
2.30
2.49
A4
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.06
0.10
0.29
0.38
0.49
0.70
0.79
0.90
1.21
1.45
1.62
1.82
1.91
2.05
2.21
2.50
2.57
2.85
69
A5
0.00
0.03
0.10
0.13
0.24
0.40
0.50
0.61
0.85
0.99
1.12
1.27
1.49
1.58
1.74
1.84
1.97
2.16
2.40
2.46
2.68
Mean
0.00
0.01
0.08
0.12
0.21
0.39
0.45
0.56
0.76
0.82
0.92
1.12
1.32
1.43
1.60
1.70
1.85
2.03
2.29
2.34
2.59
Std dev
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.10
0.12
0.12
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.20
0.20
0.22

Cycles
0
9
23
32
42
59
70
84
98
112
121
146
165
179
198
213
227
246
269
282
301
A1
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.17
0.18
0.27
0.42
0.50
0.58
0.75
0.87
1.00
1.09
1.14
1.32
1.46
1.73
1.79
2.02
A2
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.13
0.10
0.30
0.52
0.64
0.78
1.11
1.22
1.35
1.50
1.59
1.76
1.86
2.11
2.21
2.41
A3
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.21
0.21
0.47
0.68
0.86
1.02
1.39
1.55
1.66
1.89
2.02
2.23
2.41
2.74
2.85
3.09
A4
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.25
0.22
0.39
0.56
0.69
0.78
1.10
1.35
1.52
1.72
1.88
2.04
2.21
2.51
2.53
2.72
70
A5
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.03
0.17
0.12
0.32
0.49
0.65
0.74
0.99
0.00
Mean
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.19
0.18
0.36
0.55
0.67
0.79
1.09
1.25
1.38
1.55
1.66
1.83
1.98
2.27
2.35
2.56
Std dev
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.11
0.15
0.18
0.26
0.29
0.28
0.35
0.39
0.40
0.42
0.45
0.46
0.45

Cycles
0
6
20
26
35
49
58
83
102
116
135
150
164
183
206
219
238
252
271
286
305
A1
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.06
0.10
0.13
0.30
0.40
0.49
0.62
0.69
0.83
0.91
1.16
1.23
1.40
1.51
1.69
1.87
2.00
A2
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.07
0.08
0.05
0.17
0.22
0.22
0.30
0.36
0.46
0.56
0.73
0.75
0.87
0.99
1.16
1.26
1.43
A3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.17
0.31
0.44
0.48
0.62
0.73
0.87
0.98
1.22
1.31
1.50
1.59
1.79
2.05
2.23
A4
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.09
0.08
0.12
0.14
0.22
0.21
0.28
0.43
0.52
0.58
0.77
0.81
1.00
1.09
1.21
1.31
1.50
71
A5
0.00
0.04
0.13
0.09
0.13
0.13
0.25
0.44
0.58
0.68
0.85
0.95
1.11
1.22
1.50
1.54
1.84
1.99
2.17
2.32
2.60
Mean
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.09
0.09
0.14
0.27
0.37
0.42
0.53
0.63
0.76
0.85
1.08
1.13
1.32
1.43
1.60
1.76
1.95
Std dev
0.00
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.12
0.15
0.20
0.24
0.24
0.27
0.28
0.32
0.34
0.39
0.40
0.42
0.46
0.50

Cycles
0
6
15
29
38
63
82
96
115
130
144
163
186
199
218
232
251
266
285
304
A1
0.00
0.03
0.08
0.10
0.13
0.30
0.39
0.46
0.56
0.61
0.74
0.82
1.07
1.12
1.34
1.47
1.56
1.72
1.89
2.07
A2
0.00
0.03
0.08
0.04
0.13
0.22
0.32
0.33
0.43
0.49
0.62
0.68
0.93
0.95
1.18
1.26
1.41
1.52
1.75
1.95
A3
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.04
0.13
0.25
0.38
0.42
0.60
0.69
0.86
1.01
1.23
1.23
1.48
1.58
1.77
1.87
2.16
2.38
A4
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.08
0.17
0.24
0.24
0.35
0.43
0.54
0.64
0.83
0.88
1.05
1.17
1.24
1.30
1.53
1.69
72
A5
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.05
0.16
0.25
0.25
0.41
0.50
0.59
0.63
0.83
0.83
1.04
1.13
1.32
1.33
1.60
1.78
Mean
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.11
0.22
0.32
0.34
0.47
0.54
0.67
0.76
0.98
1.00
1.22
1.32
1.46
1.55
1.79
1.97
Std dev
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.06
0.07
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.19
0.21
0.25
0.25
0.27

Cycles
0
6
15
29
38
63
82
96
115
130
144
163
186
199
218
232
251
266
285
304
A1
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.13
0.22
0.23
0.34
0.43
0.54
0.62
0.79
0.85
1.00
1.05
1.18
1.31
1.52
1.72
A2
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.18
0.26
0.28
0.35
0.41
0.49
0.54
0.69
0.76
0.92
1.00
1.14
1.20
1.41
1.56
A3
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.09
0.13
0.15
0.23
0.31
0.40
0.44
0.63
0.67
0.84
0.86
1.02
1.07
1.34
1.48
A4
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.12
0.21
0.26
0.33
0.36
0.51
0.59
0.76
0.77
1.00
1.07
1.26
1.36
1.49
1.69
A5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.32
0.13
0.22
0.26
0.37
0.41
0.59
0.67
0.81
0.87
1.09
1.17
1.32
1.45
1.64
1.81
Mean
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.11
0.13
0.21
0.24
0.32
0.38
0.51
0.57
0.74
0.78
0.97
1.03
1.18
1.28
1.48
1.65
Std dev
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.12
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.09
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.11
0.12
0.15
0.11
0.13

Cycles
0
10
24
31
44
52
62
72
86
A1
0.00
0.05
0.15
0.12
0.09
0.06
0.12
0.18
0.13
A2
0.00
0.05
0.17
0.09
0.05
0.10
0.14
0.18
0.15
A3
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.12
0.13
0.17
0.13
A4
0.00
0.08
0.11
0.15
0.10
0.14
0.14
73
A5
0.00
0.09
0.10
0.08
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.13
0.11
Mean
0.00
0.06
0.11
0.10
0.07
0.10
0.12
0.16
0.13
Std dev
0.00
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
APPENDIX C. STATISTICAL ANALYSISDURABILITY FACTOR

Table 77. Durability factor sets 1 and 2sorted by fresh air content.
Mixes
227348
225346
224347
223349
226350
Admixture
Vinsol
Synthetic
Vinsol
Synthetic
Vinsol
Synthetic
Vinsol
Synthetic
Vinsol
Synthetic
Mean
87.85
28.72
90.17
55.62
85.69
75.55
88.87
65.58
93.53
82.35
s
1.48
7.06
0.64
8.38
1.18
5.09
2.79
13.15
1.26
4.07
ni
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
Pooled s2
S.E.
t0
t(.05,n1+n2-2)
22.59
3.19
18.55
2.365
0.0000003
Different
30.32
3.69
9.35
2.365
0.0000332
Different
11.89
2.31
4.38
2.365
0.0032219
Different
78.59
5.95
3.92
2.365
0.0057823
Different
8.02
1.90
5.88
2.365
0.0006102
Different
Prob (t) Conclusion
75
Table 78. Mass change sets 1 and 2sorted by fresh air content.
Mixes
227348
225346
224347
223349
226350
Admixture
Vinsol
Synthetic
Vinsol
Synthetic
Vinsol
Synthetic
Vinsol
Mean
1.61
0.32
1.79
4.03
2.56
2.06
2.59
s
0.11
0.33
0.39
0.47
0.45
0.06
0.22
ni
5
4
5
4
5
4
5
Synthetic
Vinsol
Synthetic
3.06
2.02
2.74
1.03
0.29
0.39
4
5
4
Pooled s2
S.E.
t0
t(.05,n1+n2-2)
0.05
0.16
8.34
2.365
0.0000697
Different
0.18
0.28
7.89
2.365
0.0000996
Different
0.12
0.23
2.16
2.365
0.0680295
Different
0.48
0.46
1.02
2.365
0.3426067 significantly
0.11
0.23
3.16
2.365
0.0159507
Prob (t) Conclusion
Not
different
Different
APPENDIX D
The NI-4552 Dynamic Signal Analyzer Board is used in conjunction with National Instruments
VirtualBench DSA software to obtain time-domain data from ASTM C215 (impact method)
testing of freeze-thaw test specimens and to convert that information to frequency response
curves for use in determining resonant frequency.
Required Equipment
Computer with NI-4552 Dynamic Signal Acquisition (DSA) card and Virtual Bench DSA
installed
BNC-2140 six-channel connector box (National Instruments)
Accelerometer connected to BNC-2140
Modally tuned impact hammer connected to BNC-2140
Support stand for specimens (using piano wire for supports)
General Instructions
The beams are placed on the piano wire. The accelerometer is fixed on the beam, and the
hammer hits the specimen. The impact hammer and the accelerometer are connected to the BNC
2140 box. The data is processed.
Figure 39 shows the several plots generated after tapping a freeze-thaw beam with the impact
hammer. There are four plots in the figure. The first plot (from top to bottom) shows the time
domain waveform for the impulse (hammer). This is typically one spike at the time of impact.
In some cases (as in a double hit), there will be more than one spike. The second plot shows the
time domain waveform for the response of the beam (accelerometer). This plot is typically a
damped vibration that decreases with time. The third and fourth plots show the frequency
response of the beam due to the hammer tap. The third plot shows the frequency response over
the baseband range (in this example, 0 to 3200 Hz). The frequency response on the fourth plot is
over the zoomed range (in this case 1900 to 2300 Hz), and the resonant frequency can be
manually obtained from it by placing the cursor on the peak of the curve. The frequency
response curves should look similar to those shown in this figure. At close observation, in plots 3
and 4 (especially plot 4), the frequency response curve for a good hit will be smooth as in plot 4.
It will not be wavy, it will not have two or more peaks, and it should be roughly symmetrical. It
should not have one or both ends cut offthe ends should appear to level off.
77
Figure 39. Screen capture. Typical plot generated by NI 4552 and BNC 5140 setup.
78
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The study and experiment were originally planned by Marcia Simon for FHWA. The authors
gratefully acknowledge her expertise and planning.
79
REFERENCES
1. The Road Information Program. The Road Information Program, 2004, Washington, DC,
http://www.tripnet.org.
2. Korhonen, C., "New developments in cold-weather concreting," Proceedings, The 11th
International Conference of Cold Regions Engineering, ASCE, Anchorage, AK, 2002,
pp. 531537.
3. Gonnerman, H.F., Tests of Concretes Containing Air-Entraining Portland Cements or
Air-Entraining Materials Added to Batch at Mixer, J. American Concrete Institute, vol.
15, no. 6, pp. 477507 (June 1944); Proc. 40.
4. Powers, T.C., with discussion by Willis, T.F., The Air Requirement of Frost Resistant
Concrete, Proceedings, Highway Research Board, vol. 29, 1949, pp. 184211; Bulletin
No. 33, Research and Developments Laboratories of the Portland Cement Association.
5. Klieger, P., Effect of Entrained Air on the Strength and Durability of Concretes Made
with Various Maximum Sizes of Aggregate, Proceedings, Highway Research Board,
vol. 31, October, 1952; pp. 177201; Bulletin no. 40, Research and Developments
Laboratories of the Portland Cement Association.
6. Cordon, W.A. and Merrill, D., Requirements for Freezing and Thawing Durability for
Concrete, Proceedings, ASTM vol. 63, 1963, pp. 10261036.
7. Whiting, D. and Nagi, M.A., Manual on Control of Air Content in Concrete, Portland
Cement Association, Skokie, IL, and National Ready Mixed Concrete Association, Silver
Spring, MD, 1998, EB116.
8. ACI Committee 211, Standard Practice for Selecting Proportions for Normal,
Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete (ACI 211.1-91), American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, (Reapproved 2002) 38 pp.
9. ACI Committee 201, Guide to Durable Concrete (ACI 201.2R-01), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2001, 41 pp.
10. ASTM C 94/C94M-04, Standard Specification for Ready-Mixed Concrete, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, February 2004.
11. ACI Committee 301, Specifications for Structural Concrete ACI 301-99, American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999, 49 pp.
12. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318-02,
and Commentary, ACI 318R-02, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
2002, 443 pp.
13.
TRB Circular 494, Durability of Concrete, Transportation Research Board, Section on

Concrete (A2E00), December 1999, 63 pp.
14. ASTM C231-04, Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the
Pressure Method, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, July 2004.
15. AASHTO T 152, Air Content of Freshly Mixed Concrete by the Pressure Method,
AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2005.
81
16. ASTM C173/C173M-01e1, Standard Test Method for Air Content of Freshly Mixed
Concrete by the Volumetric Method, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
March 2001.
17. AASHTO T 196M/T 196, Standard Method of Test For Air Content of Freshly Mixed
Concrete by the Volumetric Method, AASHTO, Washington, DC, January 2005.
18. ASTM C 457, Standard Test Method for Microscopical Determination of Parameters of
the Air-Void Content and Parameters of the Air-Void System in Hardened Concrete,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1998.
19. Powers, T.C., Void Spacing as a Basis for Producing Air-Entraining Concrete, J.
American Concrete Institute, May 1954; Proceedings, vol. 50, pp. 741760, Bulletin no.
49, Research and Developments Laboratories of the Portland Cement Association.
20. AASHTO T 161, Standard Method of Test for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing
and Thawing, AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2000.
21. ASTM C666/C666M-03, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid
Freezing and Thawing, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003.
22. ASTM C 215, Standard Test Method for Fundamental Transverse, Longitudinal, and
Torsional Frequencies of Concrete Specimens, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, December 2002.
23. Mehta, P.K., and Monteiro, Paulo J. M., Concrete: Structure, Properties, and Materials,
Second Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,1993, 548 pp.
24. Powers, T.C., and Helmuth, R.A., Theory of Volume Changes in Hardened Portland
Cement Paste During Freezing, Research and Developments Laboratories of the Portland
Cement Association, Research Department Bulletin 46, September 1953, Proceedings of
the Highway Research Board, vol. 32, pp. 285297, RX 046.
25. Mielenz, R.C., Wolkodoff, V.E., Backstrom, J.E., and Flack, H.I., Origin, Evolution,
and Effects of the Air Void System in Concrete. Part 1Entrained Air in Unhardened
Concrete, Journal, American Concrete Institute, July 1958; Proceedings, vol. 55; Part
2Influence of Type and Amount of Air-Entraining Agent, Journal, American
Concrete Institute, August 1958; Proceedings, vol. 55; Part 3Influence of WaterCement Ratio and Compaction, Journal, American Concrete Institute, October 1958;
Proceedings, vol. 55.
26. Lea, F. M., Leas Chemistry of Cement and Concrete. Fourth edition. Editor, Peter C.
Hewlett, Butterworth-Heinemann Publishers, 1998.
27. Powers, T.C., A Working Hypothesis for Further Studies of Frost resistance of
Concrete, ACI Journal, Proceedings, vol. 41, no. 4, February 1945, pp. 245272.
28. Powers, T.C., and Willis, T.F., Discussion of the The Air Requirement of Frost
Resistant Concrete, Proceedings of the Highway Research Board, vol. 29, 1949, pp.
184211.
29. Simon, M., Computer Applications in Air Void System Evaluation. Thesis, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY, 1989, 184 pp.
82
30. ASTM C 138, Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and Air Content
(Gravimetric) of Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2001.
31. AASHTO T 121M/T 121-05, Standard Method of Test for Density (Unit Weight), Yield,
and Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete, AASHTO, Washington, DC, 2005.
32. Powers, T.C., Basic Considerations Pertaining to Freezing-and-Thawing Tests,
Proceedings, ASTM, Vol. 55, 1955, pp. 11321155.
33. Janssen, D., and Snyder, M., Resistance of Concrete to Freezing and Thawing, SHRP-C391, Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, Washington, DC,
1994.
34. Tan, A.C., Paterson, G., Mathew, J. and Dunbabin, M., Visualisation of Vibration Mode
Shapes to Assist Students in the Learning of Mechanical Vibrations, World Transactions
on Engineering and Technology Education, UICEE, vol. 1, no.1, 2002, Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
35. Clarke, S.L. Improved Method for Nondestructive Testing of Concrete Prisms, MS
Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA,
1991.
36. ASTM C 150, Standard Specification for Portland Cement, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2003.
37. ASTM C 33-03. Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates, ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, June, 2003.
38. ASTM C 260, Standard Specification for Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2001.
39. AASHTO M154, Air-Entraining Admixtures for Concrete, AASHTO, Washington, DC,
2000.
40. ASTM C 192, Standard Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the
Laboratory, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2002.
41. ASTM C 143/C143M-03, Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement
Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, July 2003.
42. ASTM C 494, Standard Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999.
43. ASTM C 39, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003.
44. Dubovoy, V.S., Gebler, S.H., and Klieger, P. Cement-Alkali Level as it Affects AirVoid Stability, Freeze-Thaw Resistance, and Deicer Scaling Resistance of Concrete,
Research and Development Bulletin RD128, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL,
2002.
83
Recycled
Recyclable
HRDI-11/12-06(1M)E

Freeze Thaw

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Freeze Thaw

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Freeze-Thaw Resistance of Concrete

With Marginal Air Content

Research, Development, and Technology

Technical Report Documentation Page

3. Recipients Catalog No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

10. Work Unit No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

11. Contract or Grant No.

15. Supplementary Notes

18. Distribution Statement

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS

When You Know

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

When You Know

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

Table 23. Fine aggregate gradation mixes 223302. .................................................................... 44

Table 46. Mix 118-3RDM versus cycles. ................................................................................. 54

Table 71. Mix 223Mass change versus cycles.......................................................................... 69

Figure 1. Graph. Freeze-thaw durability factor for different

ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE

Figure 2. Illustration. Concrete paste

Figure 3. Equation. Pressure gradient.

ROLE OF AIR VOIDS

Figure 5. Illustration. The darker area shows

Figure 6. Illustration. Smaller air voids have higher

Figure 7. Illustration. Protection zone for

Figure 8. Photo. Vertical container for freeze-thaw

Figure 9. Photo. ASTM C 215 test setup.

Figure 10. Graph. Time domain impulse data.

Figure 11. Graph. Time domain response data.

Figure 12. Graph. Frequency response curve.

Frequency amplitude (V)

CHAPTER 3: EFFECT OF AIR CONTENT AND

Total fresh air

* Actual as-batched w/c was 0.46 for this mix .

Table 3. Fresh concrete properties for mixes 115118.

Table 4. 28-Day strength results for mixes 115118.

Table 6. Modified point count (MPC) results for mixes 115118.

Table 7. Linear traverse (LT) results for mixes 115118.

Notes: All results are based on one test.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Figure 16. Graph. Relative dynamic modulus versus cycles

Figure 17. Graph. Relative dynamic modulus versus cycles

Figure 18. Graph. Relative dynamic modulus versus cycles

designed air 3.5%

Figure 19. Graph. Relative dynamic modulus versus cycles

designed air 4.5%

Figure 20. Graph. Relative dynamic modulus versus cycles

designed air 2.5%

Figure 21. Graph. Relative dynamic modulus versus cycles

Mass change (%)

Figure 25. Graph. Comparison among modified point count test,

Spacing factor (mm)

Specific surface (mm-1)

CHAPTER 4: USE OF SYNTHETIC AIR-ENTRAINING ADMIXTURE

Set 1 (223302VR AEA))

Set 2 (346350SYN AEA))

Table 10. Mixture proportions for set 2 (mixes 346350)w/c=0.45

Target Coarse agg